Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Muhsin97233

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Various complaints about WikiEditor1234567123

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

One of the largest issues following my own investigation is suspicious behaviour that can only remind me of tag-teaming/meat-puppeting which I suspect is outright sockpuppeting with notorious accounts that have been banned already such as @Targimhoï:, @Niyskho: @MrMalaga: and @Malhuyataza: all of which are either suspected socks (mrMalaga, Malhuytaza) or confirmed socks (Targimhoi, Niyskho) of Durdzuketi a banned account that has over 10 confirmed banned socks. Targimhoi and mrMalaga were also involved on the Nazran raid article where I got involved with them. They made much of the same edits and the accounts have been subsequently banned for sock-puppeting. This is the long list of over 10 accounts that have been confirmed as sockpuppets for Dzurdzuketi and banned, including user:Targimhoi. I’ve been checking the recent history of these accounts and there are several reasons for my suspicion of @WikiEditor1234567123: being involved in tag-teaming/meat-puppeting/sock-puppeting.

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

The examples above are all on the same lines as the previous editor which you can see on the revisions, and there’s no explanation for the edits that are being done. This reminds of a joint effort.

• Wikieditor and Targimhoi seems to have been involved in numerous disputes and are seen to be backing each other. In my case on the Nazran raid article, they make the same edits and argue for the same stuff, with Targimhoi backing up Wikieditor only an hour after I edited the first time. On the same day my dispute with them was going on, Wikieditor was involved in a noticeboard incident. Targimhoi then appears out of nowhere to express his support for Wikieditor without having been mentioned or pinged anywhere.
• Editing a sandbox draft for a confirmed sockpuppet @Malhuyataza: of @MrMalaga: that make the same disruptive edits. I have no idea of where he found this sandbox draft or what led him to it. mrMalaga is also suspected to be Dzurdzuketi
• Here Wikieditor is seen editing/expanding on a draft at the same time as user Malhuyataza (confirmed sock of mrMalaga, suspected to be dzurdzuketi) literally under a day after the draft was created. Two other accounts were also seen editing on this draft, @Blasusususu: and @Iask1:. Both accounts have been banned for sockpuppeting.
• What seems like very targeted mass edits on Fyappi article. Wikieditor is seen editing with niyskho(another confirmed sockpuppet in the dzurdzuketi list), later on targimhoi jumps in. Looks like a mass targeting of the same page. Again they are not explaining their edits to each other, which further makes me believe they are connected. Edit warring for at least like 2 months.

More:

• Very long edit wars on articles such as 2004 Nazran raid, Fyappiy, Orstkhoy etc.
• After checking his revision history I also noticed most of the time he doesn’t explain his edits. This is often done when editing along with accounts that have been banned for sockpuppeting.
• Original research/misrepresenting sources. He was banned for this very thing on the Russian wiki. Keeps doing it on the English one.
• Blatant POV-pushing/nationalistic edits, heavy bias. Seems to be insisted on having Ingush written everywhere, evident by the articles I have linked. Very much in style for the 10+ accounts that are socks of Dzurdzuketi

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

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

• With respect to the socking accusation, on February 8, 2023, Wikieditor was alleged to be a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi. Ivanvector made the following comment with respect to the allegation at the SPI: "I did not check WikiEditor1234567123 because I do not see sufficient evidence to warrant a check, but I can report that they did not show up in any of my checks."--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your input. Wikieditor has suspiciously close cooperation with Durdzuketi's socks. I believe enough evidence has been provided to at least warrant a new investigation, especially now that another close account to Wikieditor, Targimhoi (sock of dzurdzuketi) was recently banned. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I believe I have the right to defend myself here. I don't have any cooperation with Durdzuketi's socks, which you mainly argument because of the diffs that you brought up which showed some time differences. Because I mainly edit on Ingush-themed or Caucasian-themed articles and am very active in Wikipedia for most of the part, when I see that an article in my watchlist is edited by someone - I sometimes go immediately "clean-up" the article or correct them. That's why there's sometimes these time differences that you mentioned. Regarding Russian Wikipedia, I was quickly banned there, due to my big mistakes in not providing a source for my claims, that however doesn't stop me from editing on other wikiprojects to make a good contribution. Also note that I was banned there 5 months ago, during this period people change! I immediately understood my mistakes and learned from them, and now I always provide sources for my claims. The other stuff you attributed to me is false as well, saying that I misrepresent sources and edit nationalistically etc. I hope this gives an answer to everything. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Can an admin please take a look at this sock/meatpuppeting case? @Materialscientist:, @Liz:, @Maile66: Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This seems like it would be a better fit at WP:SPI. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Should I move it to SPI then? Even if it includes possible meatpuppeting too? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't think SPI deals with meatpuppets, so it could probably just stay here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there any other noticeboard I can post this in? It seems like my post isn't getting any attention despite the heap of evidence provided. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

SPI can handle meatpuppetry as well, and given that many cases involve a mix of the two it's worth sending there. I think that the evidence presented here is sufficient to warrant a checkuser investigation, and for that SPI is the place to go. If the results of a checkuser are negative or inconclusive, the behavioral evidence will be evaluated further and either actioned or referred back to ANI for discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Well in that case, we should probably close this and open a discussion at SPI. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll open a case at SPI. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Rosguill. This is the link for the investigation. Not sure if I did it correctly, could you take a look? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ola Tønningsberg Looks good to me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 casting aspersions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

when there is an negative interaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Shahmaran page is constantly being disrupted by the user HistoryofIran

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

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

Whether the info is right or not isn't the point here, it's the fact that you you asked for help off-wiki, which is a blatant violation of the canvassing guideline. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know that wasn't allowed. My bad. Rojin416 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess you didn't know that removing/altering sourced info, using non-WP:RS, and casting WP:ASPERSIONS isn't allowed either? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I was using reliable sources. Infact, I was even using the approved citations and reliables sources, that clearly state it was Yazidi's and Kurds from Kurdistan. Maybe if you took the time to actually read the citated resources, you wouldn't keep undoing "A Story from the Mountains of Kurdistan." to "A Story from the Mountains of Turkey."

The citation is right there. Infront of you. Maybe learn how to read and get rid of that vendetta you have against Kurds. Rojin416 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed the name of the title, that being the only constructive edit done by OP. I suggest that OP gets indeffed for WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, off-wiki coordination, and so on. This screams WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Rojin416 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

But there's still over 4 mistakes with that page. Rojin416 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, who is we? Is this account controlled by more than one person? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Reddit off-wiki coordination at Shahmaran

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

Well, Rojin416 beat me to it. Shahmaran is currently being targeted by brand new users and IPs. One of them, Rojin416 was reverted a few times by me and Aintabli [39] [40] [41], which led him to ask for help at Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/13h03b2/i_need_help_with_wikipedia/). Two weeks ago, a similar thread about the same article was created [42]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Reddit, this person has a vendetta against Kurds and is constantly censoring anything related to Kurdistan. The citations itself clearly say "Yazidi kurds", or "from Kurdistan", yet this person constantly undos everything. Rojin416 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, at least be creative with your WP:ASPERSIONS. This users activities here and comment on Reddit clearly demonstrates serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you. You have a very clear political vendetta. It's very evident from your history regarding Kurds. Rojin416 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I rest my case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Reddit? Are you kidding me? Reddit is most certainly not a reliable source, and accusations should be made with hard evidence, such as diffs. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

As a redditor myself, I gotta say: redditors love talking out of their asses. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

but you're an unreliable source for saying that "redditors love talking out of their asses" :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Is it time for general sanctions on accounts with fewer than 100 edits that bring HistoryofIran to ANI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  ...you're telling me this a thing that keeps happening? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've lost count on how many times I've seen ANI reports on HistoryofIran on my watchlist. Callmemirela 🍁 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  In the past 12 months? At least 15 times, and that's just a quick look at the archives. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  ”Clippy” appears. ‘It looks like you’re a new user trying to report HistoryofIran. Would you like me to help by closing your browser?’ — Trey Maturin™ 20:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  And it's always some niche thing that few people are familiar with, so it languishes until three days before the next thread starts. Maybe a general sanction to just partial block any account with fewer than 100 edits that brings HistoryofIran to ANI from any page they're in conflict? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not gonna lie, that would make things way more simple. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can we vote on this? I agree that HistoryofIran has continuously been the target of many disruptive and libeling newcomers. Aintabli (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is rather wearying, isn't it? Actually, it would actually be quite a trivial edit filter to stop any new editor from starting a thread here that contained the string "HistoryofIran" ... Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yup, sounds good. I'm new to ANI and this already isn't the first HistoryofIran report I've seen. As for this specific report, I think this could safely be closed as a WP:BOOMERANG against the plaintiff, probably by indeffing them. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight. You people aren't alarmed by the fact that HistoryOfIran gets reported constantly, but because he's been here a long time, you're all going to give him god level status and going forth ignore every report about him? He has issues with allowing edits, and continues to undo anything related to Kurds or Kurdistan. This isn't my cited source, it's a source that he keeps REVERTING TO. Which he accepts as a cited source:

  ^Nicolaus, Peter (2011). “The Serpent Symbolism in the Yezidi Religious Tradition and the Snake in Yerevan” Iran & Caucasus. 15 (1/2): 59. JSTOR 41430888. “Furthermore, the serpent

  Was, and still is considered a symbol of good fortune and power among Kurdish people and the “image of Shahmaran (the queen of serpents) is depicted on glass or metal work, seen hung on walls even today”.”Accessed 14 May 2023

  However, for some reason, he won't allow me to write "Kurds" nor "Kurdistan" on the page, even though it's our mythology. I'm not here writing war stories, writing a biography, nor essays, I'm just trying to edit the page to reflect my culture and heritage which is being suppressed by HistoryOfIran. Even using THEE cited source that he himself refuses to accept anything but.

  This is ridiculous. It's evident this user has constantly been complained about in the past, but everyone's solution is just to make it so he never gets reported again? Rojin416 (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  He always gets reported by new editors that end up indeffed for severe WP:NPOV violations, so stopping those reports would save time for everyone involved. As for this dispute, the Reddit stuff and allegations of bias do not reflect well on you. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is that Rojin416 is still trying to justify their disruptive editing. That source doesn't say that the Shahmaran is of Kurdish origin, it just says that the Kurds believe in it too. And that's fine, the source is WP:RS (unlike some other ones.. [43]), it can obviously be used, and no one is denying that Kurds believe in the Shahmaran too; it's even mentioned in the article. But how did you use that source? Hmm.. let me see [44] (note: the Nicolaus citation was wrongly used on the Indo-Iranian bit instead of Sartori. Nicolaus should be used somewhere else, which is what Rojin416 should have done; I have fixed it now [45]) - you removed sourced mention of its Armenian, Turkic and Indo-Iranian connections, replacing all of it with "insert something Kurdish here". And thus you got reverted. And I'm not even gonna entertain the rest of stuff you wrote. I do think the Shahmaran article is in a state of mess based on some of the questionable citations, info not even supported by some of the citations, etc, but you did not improve its state. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

We've already talked about this in Talk section.

"That source doesn't say that the Shahmaran is of Kurdish origin, it just says that the Kurds believe in it too."

AND YET KURDS/YAZIDI/AND KURDISTAN IS STILL MISSING!

Why are we constantly going in circles? Look at your Armenian citation. It literally states it's the Yazidis that celebrate it.

"note: the Nicolaus citation was wrongly used on the Indo-Iranian bit instead of Sartori. Nicolaus should be used somewhere else, which is what Rojin416 should have done; I have fixed it now"

And the citation that you deleted, literally stated Kurdistan and Kurdish in it. Instead of updating Kurdistan and Kurdish, you delete it. AGAIN, for the millionth time, why you and another user are accused of vandalizing the page and denying Kurds and Kurdistan. Rojin416 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

[46]https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29354/1/10731449.pdf

Here read for yourself. It constantly mentions Kurdistan and the Yazidi's. It does not state it originated from Armenia. Rojin416 (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This thread isn't for content disputes. That's the whole point of a talk page and other venues if no consensus is reached. This is about your behaviour. You can't spit out the word vandalism when a discussion doesn't steer your way. This is about your behaviour. Per WP:BRD, the next step would have been having a civil discussion and potentially reaching consensus. Callmemirela 🍁 03:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've indeffed as a WP:BOOMERANG. I would support more general sanctions as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

   Oppose an indefinite block. Both Rojin416 and HistoryofIran need to work on their ability to collaborate, and I would support a two-way interaction ban, but indefinitely blocking a productive contributor does more harm than good.  — Freoh 17:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree. With evidence of canvassing, PA, and edit warring, the indef block could have been warranted. Callmemirela 🍁 17:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, the moment Rojin wrote I'm not attacking you. You have a very clear political vendetta. It's very evident from your history regarding Kurds. was the moment an indef became inevitable because there is no way back from such an egregious attack on an editor. The canvassing and the edit warring – good god, look at their contributions – was enough but that was more than enough. Good block, UtherSRG. Thank you. — Trey Maturin™ 17:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I also believe that the personal attacks and Reddit canvassing warrant the user being indeffed. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Rojin416 said that they were unaware of the canvassing policy and owned up to their mistakes. Their attacks are somewhat problematic, but they seem like a good-faith newcomer with real concerns about HistoryofIran's potentially tendentious editing. Their complaints are in the gray area between personal attack and legitimate conduct dispute. They need time to cool down and learn Wikipedia's culture, not an indefinite block.  — Freoh 14:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

They didn't only violate the canvassing policy though, for example they kept attacking me despite being told of WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA (though it goes without saying you don't randomly attack people, it's basic etiquette [47]). It seems you're the only one who consider this user to be a "good-faith editor" and "productive contributor," despite their actions, which is concerning. If you think I am doing tendentious edits, feel free to report me - right now you're just doing the same as Rojin416, accusing me of stuff with no evidence, i.e. WP:ASPERSIONS. Rojin416 has deleted all their comments in that thread now, but right after their block they went on another angry rant on Reddit, calling Wikipedia a cesspool or something alike and protesting over Shahmarans recent expansion by an uninvolved user - they clearly don't regret their actions. Don't expect another reply from me, and please don't ping me in this thread again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I again disagree. Prior to the Reddit post being deleted, they were demonstrating POV-pushing, including possible in their latest unblock request. Callmemirela 🍁 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Rojin416 was a bin-fire in the making. Their edits were terrible, their personal attacks on HistoryofIran were awful in every way, and it's not a huge surprise for anyone anywhere on the internet to know that rounding up your mates on social media in order to bombard somewhere or someone is always unacceptable behaviour.

Also, Freoh: a cool down block for them? Really? Come on. There are good reasons why we don't do that. — Trey Maturin™ 16:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

with real concerns about HistoryofIran's potentially tendentious editing

I'm guessing you've not hung out on ANI much. Because I'll be blunt: HistoryofIran is one of our best resources for fighting against nationalistic POV warriors in these articles. The concerns about HoI invariably come from people trying to push "OUR nation created this, not THOSE people" types of edits. If anything, HoI deserves a medal for putting up with the lengthy battles against these types of accounts, and the number of times they've had to sit waiting on admin action.

Despite the OP's assertion that we're supporting HoI based on the age of their account, the truth is that we're supporting HoI based on the fact they've been right more often than not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of waiting on admin action...cough cough scroll up cough ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Which thread are you referring to? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Volkish Kurden

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

Looks like another brand new user arrived from Reddit, with the same behaviour as Rojin416. I could go into more details (such as them inserting their own words/opinion into articles [48] [49], and thinking that they get to omit a (highly prominent) historian because they dont agree with them [50]) but I hope these diffs suffice;

"rvv, extreme pan iranic edits previously, dedicated to wiping out kurdic history, whilst the short explanation on the Corduene wiki about Carduchoi exists, it is insufficient." (This was their first edit, randomly reverting my half year old clean up edit, which I did in a number of articles at that time, such as Cadusii [51]. Apparently that warrants those random attacks. How did they even know of that edit? And why attack a random stranger like that? Also, including the Cyrtians as part of "Kurdic history" is on par with a Mexican saying that Aztec/Mayan/Spanish history is "Mexican" just because they can trace their ancestry to them)

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

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

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

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

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

Link to personal blog of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created by 22spears

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also regarding 86sedan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also Qirtaiba (Jeremy Malcolm) and R alvarez02

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

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

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

Questions for Bbb23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Bbb23) Other related matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related matter, Qirtaiba unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SPECIFICO, civility, ownership, edit warring

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

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

I also requested an interaction break from SPECIFICO, which pretty quickly fell apart—he "thanked" me for an edit soon after replying to my request for an interaction break, and, later, after he reverted me, I pinged him in the resulting talk page section to discuss the reversion. After that revert, I also—very explicitly—tried to extend an olive branch. I said:

By the way—since you did revert (hence the ping), I'd, of course, be more than happy to have you participate in the most recent discussion section—even if your take is that the current version is the best and most superior version! (I fully acknowledge that sometimes "awkward" constructions are a personal thing, and if I read something as being a bit awkward and everyone else disagrees—I'm wrong!)--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(In case it wasn't obvious, this is a olive branch! I genuinely think that we would probably agree on 99% of issues, and the fact that we're having a contentious discussion about the 1% shouldn't get in the way of that.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Here’s how SPECIFICO responded to that message:

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

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

• Talk:Donald_Trump#Wording_re:_Rebukes: Made after [63].
  • Reason offered for revert: Completely changes the meaning of this text and is not an improvement
  • Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? No.
  • Result? My edit was reinserted after another edit said: Edit was completely justified. Does not change the content or tone of the text, and is appropriately past tense, as all Wikipedia articles about past events (e.g. when Trump was president) are supposed to be.
• Talk:Donald_Trump#FBI Investigations into Trump: Made after this revert.
  • Reason offered: "not better".
  • Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? No.
  • Result? Reinserted by another editor. "Yes, I also cannot find any evidence in sources for that claim (folded into investigation, not ended) either. I'm going to restore these changes as supported by sourcing, and appropriately removing unsourced material...."
• Talk:Donald_Trump#Wording change re:Greenberg call: Made after this revert.
  • Reason offered: Not an imrovment. Wording and punctuation shapes the meaning and narratives of article text, and such edits should not be marked "minor". This one was much discussed in the past and the change was not an improvement.
  • Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? Eventually, yes, before then discussing with just one user on your talk page.
  • Result? Two other editors agreed that the text as it stood in the article was not clear and needed editing. You eventually responded to disagree with all of the edits the three of us had made. SPECIFICO and one of the editors discussed changes on SPECIFICO's personal talk page, explicitly in order to avoid discussing changes on the article talk page (even though only four users were in that discussion).

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

• Suggest boomerang Andre🚐 15:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm okay with that! I would ask that, assuming there's a boomberang, someone removes the GA nomination for Death of Caylee Anthony and possibly Murder of Laci Peterson—on the former, I've been the only main editor for some time; on the latter, there's been another editor, but I'm not sure if that editor wants to go through the GA process. Having reviewed myself, I don't want to waste a reviewer's time. Thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Gonna have to agree. I'm surprised we even ended up here. DFlhb (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, I'm happy to accept the consensus and retire. I would suggest that someone eventually takes a look at the OWNERSHIP issues on that page, because I won't be the last editor SPECIFICO tries to intimidate off the page.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe that OP should be removed from the project, as they seem like a good editor. I would support an IBAN, and if we really think Jerome's conduct at Donald Trump is problematic, a page ban. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think, aside from any issues with JFD, this situation with SPECIFICO is indeed an issue. I can see how interactions with SPECIFICO led to this entire situation and JFD (rightly, unfortunately) getting a 3 month pban.
  The issue is this: SPECIFICO has been warned before by both myself and others ([64][65][66][67] and this gem: SPECIFICO's constant personal attacks and aspersions against other users (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5])—to say nothing of her systematic POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources—would surely have resulted in an indefinite site ban years ago if she shared the politics of (insert user). [68])
  We have warned SPECIFICO repeatedly about accusing others of breaking policy without evidence, and it now seems clear, this user has a pattern of doing so as part of attempts to discourage users from contributing to articles that (it seems) SPECIFICO doesn't want to change.

• They provide edit warring warnings to users after 1 revert, without engaging (or only minimally engaging) on the article talk page (see above diffs). They knee-jerk revert to their preferred version, in effect acting as a "filter" on articles until they are overruled on talk page by a consensus of others.
• SPECIFICO has also engaged in numerous instances of critiquing and commenting on other editors' behavior on article talk pages [69] (and has been warned about it at AE: [70]).
• This user (SPECIFICO) also has a history of hounding/harassing editors they disagree with politically/philosophically: including an anti-bludgeoning sanction [71] and specific campaigns/efforts to punish other users repeatedly [72][73]
• Of particular note: [74] (a situation in which SPECIFICO narrowly avoided a site-ban, on the principle that they should be able to show productive editing without these disputes/harassments): the community was already extremely close to implementing a community site-ban, so "pushing the envelope" will not be accepted, and may lead very quickly to a site ban discussion[75] and Please take great care in reading all other warnings provided in the close. You were, indeed, extremely close to a site ban, and this should be a wakeup call [76]

I say all of these things, despite being (ideologically) extremely well-aligned with SPECIFICO, given their user and talk pages. But we cannot tolerate this sort of thing from anyone, even (especially) those we fervently agree with.

Why, as a project, are we putting up with all of this? SPECIFICO appears accustomed to employing the gears of Wikipedia to remove disagreement, enforce their preferred version of articles, and remove ideological "opponents", all of which creates a battleground mentality on the pages they frequent. This is exactly the environment which led JFD to break the BRD requirement(an otherwise very productive user, who has created numerous BRD discussions on the DJT talk after reverts from SPECIFICO, in which SPECIFICO ignores any and all actual discussion). I'm not sure what benefit this behavior provides to the project. I would recommend an AMPOL TBAN for SPECIFICO, if not an outright site ban given the previous warnings re: this behavioral pattern. Edit: 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) clarified with inserted text to finish hanging clause. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? I'm surprised there was a boomerang discussion here with something that bad. I would support a topic ban or siteban of SPECIFICO at this time. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think part of it is that it has been a long time since some of this disputes flared up (2014, 2017, and 2018). But not much appears to have actually changed about their behavior (particularly ownership and chasing away other editors). They were TBAN'd from a similar dispute involving the Joe Biden page in 2020: [77]. And Julian Assange: [78] (also in 2020). They were also very close to sanctions for simiar knee-jerk reverts at Donald Trump in 2018: [79] As far as I can tell, they have received warnings or short TBANs for a littany of similar situations. I can count nearly 20 similar instances over the years. These are the patterns I would like SPECIFICO to reconsider, and those which I think are disrupting the project. Bans are preventative, not punitive, and so a TBAN for this user is probably more than sufficient. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR:, you reviewed all of Shibbolethink's links in 6 minutes? If you look more deeply at Shibbolethink's evidence, most of it falls apart. The claims of "warnings" are from Shibbolethink and 2 very partisan editors; the quote in green at the top was due to a misunderstanding; the claims of reverting unless there's a consensus are diff-less, and that generally follows BRD anyway unless taken to the extreme; the diff claiming to describe commenting on other editors was a perfectly reasonable comment about the content of someone's BLP-violating comments; the last two bullets, and the quote in green at the bottom, are from 2014.

I don't want to be harsh, but WP is also damaged by (a) someone pulling out 9-year old diffs that they've had in storage to try to eliminate another editor, and (b) drive-by editors taking such claims at face value and jumping to immediately supporting a siteban. Padding a report with tons of borderline accusations in order to make it look overwhelming is really poor form, but it happens a lot here. And I'd recommend taking everything said at ANI with a grain of salt unless you know about it yourself, or research the claims made. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for notifying me of that. It would appear that most of the talk page warnings are from the same people. And, upon further examination, those diffs are not great evidence. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

the claims of reverting unless there's a consensus are diff-less
See these reverts which were later over-ruled by consensus, for example: [80][81][82][83] (right about the source but not the content) etc etc. struck 18:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)because it's an example where consensus hasn't yet been established

Padding a report with tons of borderline accusations in order to make it look overwhelming is really poor form - Everything (with perhaps only the exception of the ASPERSIONS comment) in my comment is based upon formal or informal warnings to SPECIFICO from admins. The ASPERSIONS comments are from editors across the spectrum, who SPECIFICO gets into minor disagreements with. Again, over 1 revert in my and other cases! That's the issue that brought me here, someone who templates regulars in an attempt to dissuade them from contributing. SPECIFICO could have said "hey just an FYI, there's a BRD requirement on that page and you should be careful". or "hey that's a really contentious area, are you sure you want to delve into it?" But instead they just drop an accusation of edit warring and go from there. That's also very poor form.

Here, in order, is a list of those warnings/sanctions that I could find which match this behavioral pattern:

Warnings/sanctions against SPECIFICO, in reverse chronological order

"Simply put, there is no good answer here. A warning is simply insufficient, a topic ban is way overkill. I've blocked SPECIFICO for 48 hours as a standard admin action. Blocks serve two purposes, to stop disruption now and/or to act as a deterrent to undesirable behavior in the future. This block is obviously for the latter rather than the former. To be clear, SPECIFICO's final revert was against policy as breaking the Consensus Required restriction on the page. There was no BLP or other exemption under 3RRNO that could have applied, it was simply editorial preference. I don't think he is lying, but I do think he understood there was risk to the path he chose, and risks often have consequences. In this case, a block. While I'm quite sure this sanction is sure to displease everyone, and perhaps in equal measure but for different reasons, it was done after careful and long consideration." [84] 10 August 2022 "SPECIFICO is warned to be more civil in the American Politics topic area and Wikipedia more generally." [85] 25 May 2022 I-ban after this whole thing [86]. 26 December 2020 "SPECIFICO is topic-banned from Julian Assange for a period of 2 weeks per this AE request." [87] 5 November 2020 "SPECIFICO is reminded that being rude isn't particularly helpful in discussions, and it is a slippery slope that can lead to sanctions later." [88] 17 October 2020 "You are topic banned from editing material related to sexual misconduct allegations against Joe Biden for 1 week (until 20 May 2020)." [89] "SPECIFICO is given a logged warning as follows: SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions" [90] 9 April 2020 "SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is placed under the Anti-Filibuster, Courtesy in reporting, No personal comments, and Thicker skin sanctions described at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions for a duration of 1 year." [91]13 August 2018 "No action taken, but SPECIFICO is advised to use more caution going forward." [92] 15 June 2018 " Warned While the article is not under special editing restrictions, it falls under the post-1932 AP topic area and so extra care must be taken when editing. Being a veteran of this area, SPECIFICO knows very well that rewording or attempting to summarize what may be existing content can be quite contentious and edit warring to retain this rewording or new summary is in no way "reverting to longstanding stable content". This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus." [93], [94] "That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed." [95] 3 June 2018 [96] "SPECIFICO is reminded of the behavioral standards expected of Wikipedia editors, and warned that not following them in the future will likely lead to sanctions." [97] 20 May 2018 1-way I-ban [98]. 14 September 2014 TBAN from Ludwig von Mises and the Mises Institute [99]. 22 April 2014

Of those, only the last two are from 2014, the rest are much more recent. The majority of these warnings/sanctions are from the last 3 years.

I found all of these just by looking today. Before the recent few days, I have never had any prolonged interactions with SPECIFICO to the best of my knowledge. I'm not here to settle any old scores or eliminate an opponent. Truthfully, I often, in my heart of hearts when I'm staring up at the ceiling all by my lonesome at night, think Wikipedia needs more editors who agree with WP:LUNATICS. So I would dispute your characterization of myself as someone pulling out 9-year old diffs that they've had in storage to try to eliminate another editor. I even agree with SPECIFICO on many of the disputes on that page! I am here only because I think there should be an understanding of everyone at this discussion that JFD's breaking of the BRD rule at Donald Trump is not without preamble. There's been a battleground mentality at that talk page for a long long time, and I think the above shows SPECIFICO is heavily contributing to it.

Personally, I also think WP:AE is a much better venue for things like this, and would never have come here in the first place if JFD hadn't done so first. But I will also say, the above pattern of 9+ AE threads about this user ending in a warning or a short term sanction, shows that that process may be failing the project in the case of this particular user.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Those reverts were fine.

Further, this diff you offer is SPECIFICO reverting insertion of Trump as the oldest president thus far to take office, with an edit summary saying that it was "somewhat trivial" and sourced to WP:FORBESCON. It's been discussed plenty on the talk page over several years, and obviously needs consensus for inclusion. You reinserted it, against WP:ONUS, even though there was already a discussion on the talk page with five editors opposing, and two supporting (one support voter advanced no argument whatsoever). But SPECIFICO's the one being disruptive? On the contrary, she's doing great work on that page. She and I have butted heads before, and she was perfectly dignified about it; didn't bludgeon, didn't hold a grudge. I wish more editors were like that (and many are, and I'm grateful for them all).

Also, I didn't know non-admins could hand out warnings. I've been missing out! DFlhb (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You reinserted it, against WP:ONUS, even though there was already a discussion on the talk page with five editors opposing, and two supporting (one support voter advanced no argument whatsoever). But SPECIFICO's the one being disruptive?

I reinserted it, providing actual WP:RSes [100] which support the claim and show it is DUE. I also removed some of the inserted content that appeared to take it farther from consensus [101] And then, when pointed towards that talk page discussion, I happily participated and will accept consensus. As all things should be

Also, I didn't know non-admins could hand out warnings. I've been missing out!

Regular users warn other users about the possibility of hitting 3rr or another such issue all the time. In fact, WP:EWN admins often ask you if you've done it. I think this is quite evidently a discrepancy between the colloquial and official meanings of "warning." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There are WP:RS for a billion things we don't mention, and for dozens of things we have affirmative consensus against. You're criticizing SPECIFICO for reverting something that five editors had disputed on the talk page by that point. That's not ownership, and neither are the other diffs. DFlhb (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You're criticizing SPECIFICO for reverting something that five editors had disputed on the talk page by that point
Oh I'm sorry, did I include that diff as an example of SPECIFICO reverting only until consensus is established (in effect, acting as a filter) ? That was my mistake, I misunderstood your concern, I will strike it. But I stand by the rest of the diffs in that claim. SPECIFICO was, until today, knee-jerk reverting things at the article from multiple users. That's why I said they were acting with OWNERSHIP tendencies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as the involved editor, I can only say that it ms incredibly frustrating to be accused of OR multiple times in the same discussion, only for that user to never elaborate on how what you’ve said was OR. It’s incredibly frustrating to extend an olive branch and only be told you just don’t understand Wikipedia policy and you should stay away from a page. It’s incredibly frustrating to, on a contentious page, spell out in the edit summary why you’re making an edit (explaining the grammar issue or the lack to a source), only to have that user revert you with an edit summary that says “not better” or “completely changes the meaning” … and then never follow up, even when you ping them. You keep saying the reverts were fine, can you explain why? Why was the use of the perfect tense called for in the first? Or, if it wasn’t, and you’re saying what was called for was having an unsourced claim (“folded into”)—which, by the way, I spent considerable time trying to source— over a sourced claim, why was the whole edit reverted? Why not just that part? And, same thing with the other edits I’ve mentioned above? And even if you still say “no no the total revert was fine” (whatever fine means in this context), no discussion on the talk page, even after the a ping? Also fine? Is that collaboration? (Ironically SPECIFICO was later upset that I had flooded the talk page with sections asking about her reverts)-—Jerome Frank Disciple 18:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I've only edited Talk:Donald Trump occasionally, but even just from having it on my watchlist and reading through the talk page from time to time and occasionally participating a discussion, I have to agree with Shibbolethink's observation that the "breaking of the BRD rule at Donald Trump is not without preamble. There's been a battleground mentality at that talk page for a long long time" [I removed the rest of my comment because forget it, I'm not getting involved in that.] -sche (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, you know what? My earlier comment included this: "I was about to say that I don't know what the best course of action here is, since warnings haven't worked, ... but the fact that an admin already made that very observation last year ("there is no good answer here. A warning is simply insufficient, a topic ban is way overkill. I've blocked SPECIFICO") makes me think we're at a point where, sadly, we should finally be considering an AMPOL topic ban, to let cooler heads handle things." I dropped that because I wasn't completely confident that all 'smaller' options short of topic-banning Specifico had been exhausted. But I want to highlight just how many attempts (warnings, blocks, discussion here, etc) have been made to get Specifico to improve her own behaviour (listed above) in an effort to avoid having to finally escalate to topic-banning her... so when I see a user below suggesting we don't need to do anything but nudge Specifico again but we should jump straight to broadly-topic banning JFD from all American politics for editing a page too much, especially when JFD has so clearly (even in opening this thread, and on his talk page) been eager to improve in response to feedback... 🙄 (That editor doesn't seem to have read or at least understood the edits in question, since she says JFD made a "self-serving edit request in the middle of the thread", but the edit request is the opposite of self-serving, it's bending over backwards to be compliant and notify anyone who thought his wording was problematic that it had been left in the article after the shuffle and "I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to sneak my preferred version of the article by".) -sche (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request?

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

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

I find Talk:Donald Trump to be an assault on the senses at the moment, there are numerous, numerous multilevel proposals and votes and options and I just give up trying to wade through it all. the OPs contributions are overwhelming, volume-wise, and I don't think SPECIFICO's past issues have any bearing on the frustration that seems to come with trying to deal with all of this. ValarianB (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

OPs contributions are overwhelming, volume-wise While I do understand your frustration with wading through that page, this particular part is entirely due to the interplay of SPECIFICO's reverts and the BRD requirement placed on that page. JFD was making (many quite good, a few less so) edits on that page, and SPECIFICO was reverting many of them with very little explanation. So then JFD goes to the talk, to do BRD as instructed, but then SPECIFICO doesn't participate. So the rest of us talk it out on the page, come to a rough consensus, and move forward. Rinse, repeat, and that's how you get so many multiple talk page sections. I also hate it, but I think it's by virtue of the environment/climate/restrictions on that page. A confluence of factors. Not any one user's fault. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Just looking at a cursory check in on the article history, I see JFD making a lot of reverts. I also see them being blocked starting with the section User talk:Jerome Frank Disciple#Violation of 24-hour BRD at Donald Trump and continuing with not understanding why they were edit warring [102] and I would suggest an AP topic ban might be merited Andre🚐 00:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Have I made a lot of reverts? The vast majority of my edits are, certainly, not reverts, and I'm curious about what the comparison for "a lot of reverts" is. Compared to SPECIFICO?

  Just a side comment that isn't a critique and has nothing to do with nothing, so to speak: One thing that's always been fascinating to me is how differently different people can interpret text. You posted that diff of a comment I made as evidence I didn't understand the block. The admin that responded to that comment took it as evidence that I did understand it, and unblocked me. (For the record, I think I understand, but I realize that's not actually evidence that I do understand. My only point is that it's funny how random the process is. Perhaps a different admin would've been like "you clearly don't understand—now your blocked for a month!".)--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• WP:PETARD Hello! I realize, for the reasons I discuss here, that this may very well boomerang on me. I bowed out due to the constant snide, unhelpful remarks and ownership showed by Jerome Frank Disciple. Thing is, this editor consistently misconstrues posts by other editors, adding imagined motivations behind other editors edits. Late for me. If someone wants diffs, I'll supply. You can start with Bish's disinvitation at her TP.[103] O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Facts and figures JFD's been editing the Trump pages at a staggering pace. In only 7 days, they have made 109 article edits and 269 talk page edits. That's in 7 days.

  If you look at the page statistics, the average rate of the ten most active article editors is less than 1/3 as frequent -- over an average period of roughly 5 years.

  On the talk page, JFD has edited at a rate roughly 5 times more frequently than the ten most active talk page contributors.

  There's not much room for error there. And there's been no willingness to slow down, moderate their tone, etc. etc. In fact, after being blocked for edit-warring, their reaction was to come file this complaint, ignoring this page's clear instruction to notify me of the posting.

  I don't think this editor has the temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles.

  SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Notification diff: [104]. I do apologize for the slight delay! I realize about an hour and a half went by before the notification. (First time at ANI.) But I do think it's a bit misleading for you to respond ... seven hours after I notified you and say that I never notified you. I was also working on the post prior to the block (if proof is needed I'm happy to show the Pages file that I created documenting the prior interaction). Is the comment about pace a critique of my edits, which are almost always minor (grammar related)? I do admit I often do minor edits in sections, working on pieces of the article at a time, but I think this is generally a decent practice. For example, if I had made *every* edit that I made to the Trump article in one go, can you honestly say that you wouldn't' have reverted the whole thing? Even among the minor edits I made, you reverted a few times because, I can only assume, you disagreed with a portion of the edit, but other portions of the edit were uncontroversial. No willingness to slow down? I provided multiple examples above of me reacting to your reverts by creating talk page discussions. Isn't that exactly what WP:BRD is for? --Jerome Frank Disciple 14:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: This filing seems hinge on the fact that SPECIFICO happens to edit in a lot of controversial American Politics areas, and thus this is probably a (multiple) content dispute more than anything else. (Although, SPECIFICO shouldn't be telling an editor "to stop editing the Trump page multiple times" [if in fact that occurred; no diffs are provided]; instead he should warn the editor and if that doesn't stop disruptive editing they can be brought to ANI or whatever the next step might be.) I, too, would support an AP Topic Ban on the OP, for behavior in this thread and on wiki, not the least of which is making a blatant self-serving edit request in the middle of the thread [105]. For some further perspective, the editor just got blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring on Donald Trump [106]. An AP TBan, broadly construed, would give the OP an opportunity to demonstrate they can edit constructively and collaboratively and civilly and within WP policies and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Although, SPECIFICO shouldn't be telling an editor "to stop editing the Trump page multiple times" [if in fact that occurred; no diffs are provided];
  [107][108][109][110][111] These are overall more mild than "stop editing the Trump page". And worded not unkindly. But I think it is a fair summary of the effect these successive comments (and multiple under-explained reverts and personal comments) can have on another user.

  I overall think this situation will be okay, and based on the input of users so far on this thread, my guess is that no sanctions will occur.

  However, I would urge all editors to keep in mind some of what SPECIFICO has said in this thread:

• JFD's been editing the Trump pages at a staggering pace. In only 7 days, they have made 109 article edits and 269 talk page edits. That's in 7 days
  • This comment fails to mention that the average size of those edits is <50 characters, most <20. It seems what SPECIFICO is uncomfortable with in this situation is that the article is changing.
• there's been no willingness to slow down, moderate their tone, etc. etc.
  • From what independent uninvolved users on this thread have said (not me or anyone involved at that talk page), they seem much more concerned with SPECIFICO's tone than with JFD's. JFD appears to be bending over backwards to be civil here and elsewhere.
• In fact, after being blocked for edit-warring, their reaction was to come file this complaint, ignoring this page's clear instruction to notify me of the posting.
  • This is not true and should be retracted. At 15:52 May 17 OP pinged SPECIFICO. At 16:45 May 17, OP posted a templated alert on SPECIFICO's talk.
• I don't think this editor has the temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles.
  • Only one of the editors in this thread has been TBAN'd multiple times from AmPol topics, and it is not OP. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

I would overall encourage SPECIFICO to reconsider how they respond to new editors entering an article space, and how aggressively rebuffing that input from multiple editors can create a hostile battleground-like space, which doubtlessly will come back to bite any and all users involved. The goal of this project is not "who can secure their preferred version for the longest" or "who can remove the most ideological opponents" but rather, "who can build an excellent encyclopedia." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have found Jerome Frank Disciple to a be super productive editor and someone who is super easy to work with on topics we have agreed and disagreed. The edit war sanction seemed hasty, but that has been resolved. My limited interaction with SPECIFICO has been less positive or productive, but nothing other than simple content disagreements. I will add that SPECIFICO's argument that JFD doesn't have temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles unfounded and honestly SPECIFICO is closer to that standard just based on prior history. That Trump article is a huge headache for obvious reasons so good luck to good editors attempting to wade through all the disputes. Nemov (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment I agree with Nemov on all points, for the reasons he stated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I echo Nemov's opinion about Jerome. I've been involved in two discussions with Jerome from my knowledge. In one I was on his side and the other I wasn't. In both experiences I found his contributions to be valuable and civil. Now with that said, from my experiences, when Jerome is adamant about something he can be a bit bludgeony. Jerome Frank Disciple, thats something you should work on. It's quite common with new editors to do that. So he should be warned not booted from the project or any topic area. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  In case someone is counting !votes or something on this discussion, I oppose any sanctions against Jerome at this time for the reasons directly above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment from OP: I appreciate all the comments and participation from everyone. I am trying to take to heart the critiques, though I have to admit it's also been very nice to read the complements, so thank you to everyone, but thank you especially to those have been able to talk about their history with me or who have been understanding of my motivations. It's truly heartwarming for me to read.
  I do want to apologize for all the trouble. I realize that, in some ways, I'm the worst messenger for this. The prospect of a boomerang discouraged me from commenting before. But I'm certain that SPECIFICO's actions discourage solid, good-faith editors from approaching the article—I'm certain that they already have done that, and I'm certain that they will do that. I know I sometimes have to fight against my own stubbornness—I try to be conscious of that—but, while that stubbornness is a defect, it's also what's allowed me to keep going on that page. And I think most editors agree that the vast majority of my edits on that page have been minor but objective improvements. In some ways, it's my stubbornness that allowed me to post here, even though it's also what makes posting here risky for me. Because I don't think an editor should have to be stubborn and fight through unjustified barriers in order to improve an article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I've not been monitoring the situation that closely, but I seem to recall a vibe of hostility from SPECIFICO towards JFD at the Trump page, which may deserve a reminder on civility. starship.paint (exalt) 16:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Jerome Frank Disciple and Shibbolethink have been editing the main page and the talk page, that mess and cesspool (their words), effusively since May 10. The sheer volume of edits, from punctuation to reading the sources for given texts, makes it hard to keep up with evaluating the merits of each one which may account for some of the less than elaborate edit summaries. As for the messy cesspool, the current state of the talk page is not an improvement. Tone and vibe: I thought I was detecting whiffs of condescension at times, but not from Specifico. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  This matches my perception. There's a difference between trying to dictate how discussions are run, versus trying to help keep them on-point & concrete. SPECIFICO's in the latter camp. DFlhb (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support block or warning. Links provided by Jerome show beyond reasonable doubt that Specifico has been adopting a passive aggressive attitude towards other users in controversial topics. Furthermore, there are instances where Specifico refuses to engage in discussion; this is contradictory to the consensus building process as described in WP:Communication is required. One user in this thread suggested to "boomerang" this to the OP, but did not offer any reasoning. We must remember that this is not a VOTE, and suggestions without evidence are not to be given weight. What I see here is an instance of WP:UNBLOCKABLE, a pushback by the 'fan club' to turn the blame to the OP, who has made a valid complaint.--81.214.106.114 (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. I've largely been dormant on Wikipedia lately due to being uninterested in the project, but this feels like Jerome wants to send a genuine complaint, while Specifico is using the OP's disadvantages to their advantage. Nobody is perfect, even the most illustrious and high-ranking editors out there mess up. Jerome is otherwise a good editor, and I think if this situation is resolved in their favor then they can become a very well known and respected Wikipedian. If this is resolved in Specifico's favor, it likely won't improve anyone due to many warnings and blocks being sent to them and nothing really improving. 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 18:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, strong support for some sort of community response here, if only to the extent of a firm warning I won't disagree that Jerome seems to need to make some adjustments here, and that this is not the strongest set of circumstances on which to bring SPECIFICO's conduct under scrutiny, because of those conflating "the other guy" factors. That said, Jerome is far from the first editor to bring Specifico to a notice board over the last few years, or otherwise raise concerns about his discussion style. And while I have not been in the position of being engaged in a prolonged content dispute with Specific myself, I do answer a fairly large number of RfCs as a major component of my contributions as a Wikipedian, I've had a number of occasions to directly observe his conduct in heated discussions, seeing as he seems to contribute almost exclusively in WP:ARBAP2 and other highly polarized American cultural topics. And despite the indirect exposure, I've seen a lot of evidence of a highly abrasive approach to discussion and consensus on controversial topics.

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

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

All of that said, I really need something more contemporary and substantial if I were to support a sanction in the form of a block or TBAN. So I'm not prepared to support such an action today. That said, I do think it would be in everyone's best interest to provide a formal warning to him that the community has to assess contributors such as himself, who are often right on the facts but can't present them without a wake of disruption, with a cost-benefit analysis, and that additional new topic bans are on the table if there is a continued pattern of tendentiousness and ownership behaviours. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Odd that you have so much experience with Specifico, and yet used the incorrect pronoun to reference her nine times. Please be more careful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's user page says: "This user prefers to be referred to by whatever gender pronoun makes you feel comfortable." How are other users supposed to know what pronouns to use, if not from that page? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hover your mouse over her username. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I am virtually certain that I have seen indication that Specifico went by male pronouns in the past. By default (and you're welcome to check up on my recent edits to confirm this), I always refer to fellow community members on this project by gender-neutral "they", unless and until I know they embrace a gender and utilize a particular other pronoun here. It's a firm rule I follow for a number of reasons, so you can rest assured that I referred to Specifico as "he" because I believed that was Specifico's preference. If I misremembered (and I don't think I have, but it's possible) or her preferences have changed, I apologize and you can be certain I will comply with whatever Specifico's preferences are at any given time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit obscure, but {{gender|SPECIFICO}} → she. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Shameless plug for WP:EDPRONOUNS, featuring guidance on general pronoun practices, finding a specific editor's pronouns, and how to handle mistakes regarding pronouns. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic. We should return to the main issue at the hand. I think an administrator should collapse this part of the discussion. 81.214.106.114 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Wow, this is a doozy. A lot of talk for what seems to me like something that should not have even been brought to ANI in the first place. Jerome has made a lot of edits, some of which SPECIFICO challenged, and is unsatisfied with SPECIFICO's response (or lack thereof). Obviously you are not required to explain your reason for reverting an edit on the talk page, though that is preferred, but these edits were extremely small, and Jerome's insistence of opening a talk page thread for each one is pretty unreasonable, especially at a page that has as many watchers as Trump's does. This is a scenario that often plays out between experienced editors and newcomers. Ideally Jerome would have just moved on, knowing that if their edits were reverted and nobody came to their defense out of the hundreds of editors watching the page, their edit was likely correctly reverted. It is disruptive to demand a consensus for small edits on a page that is highly visible. If there was a major issue with these edits, it would have been brought up and discussed by multiple editors on the talk page. That Jerome chose to come here seems they think they are entitled to a response and gives the impression of filibustering. It should be made clear to Jerome that they are not entitled to any response beyond that explained in a reasonable edit summary. Simply put, the lack of response to Jerome's objections is the community saying this is not worth their time. The only thing I see as possibly warranting this ANI is SPECIFICO appearing dismissive by telling Jerome to step away from the page multiple times, though not to the point sanctions are needed. Bottom line: Jerome needs to learn when to move on, and SPECIFICO needs to remember to not discourage good-faith editors from contributing. Nothing sanctionable, no warnings needed beyond those mild reminders. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  The page has a BRD notice on it. The page literally tells users to post on the talk page if reverted. If JFD is following policy and guidelines and page notices, and you disagree with JFD, then it seems you may be interested in changing those things, rather than correcting JFD's behavior. I responded to JFD's threads, and agreed in multiple that JFD was correct. SPECIFICO didn't respond. So I reimplemented his changes. I would never have noticed them if not for the talk page sections. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  It tells users to post on the talk page because that is preferred to edit warring. It is not a requirement to post on the talk page, and indeed it is not common practice for every little revert to be discussed on the talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's good that you responded and restored, all I'm saying is that an ANI is not justified simply because SPECIFICO did not respond to the threads. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I agree? If it were only the case that SPECIFICO was reverting me on dubious grounds and then not responding to requests for elaboration, I absolutely wouldn't have come here! But, as I explained, it wasn't just that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• I will note without further comment that there is a separate section concerning a user who made seven (7) strongly opinionated political edits arguing with other users; the section for this user was closed with an immediate indef-block, and with no discussion having taken place in it other than the report and the announcement of the block. jp×g 02:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is a wildly inapt comparison. A new editor flooding talk pages with sections like "was this article written by the Democrats" and "‎Why can nothing bad about Obama be added?" is a different situation than an established editor with a large amount of productive contributions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: 1 month TBAN from AmPol for SPECIFICO

The biggest issue that keeps coming up with SPECIFICO is her behavior towards other users. Some highlights:

1. Repeatedly calling single reverts "edit warring" [112][113][114]
2. Repeatedly "going to many editors' talk pages to allege" [insert various forms of misconduct] without evidence. (e.g. WP:ASPERSIONS) [115][116][117]
   1. Subset: alleging misconduct on talk pages without evidence. E.g. Please do not personalize your talk page comments. Please make neutrally worded statements of issues that concern you. [118] (in response to this comment of mine: @SPECIFICO then reverted that most recent change (not restoring STATUSQUO, but restoring STC's edit)...) and instances of other accusations like these: [119][120]
3. Failing to AGF and generally biting newcomers (not just to the site, but to her preferred article spaces):
   1. This is another instance of your not being as familiar with WP policies and guidelines as you think.[121]
   2. Jerome, you seem incapable of understanding straightforward feedback [122]
   3. Please read and advocate your position according to WP:ONUS. Merely asserting that you are correct will not lead to consensus to include it. (in response to a comment I made citing 8 WP:HQRSes and arguing the content was WP:DUE) [123]
   4. No, I object. You should not be setting up an RfC, certainly not within a couple of hours of posting at BLPN for additional discussion and moreover with your relative inexperience as an editor on this page and on this site[124]
   5. No more snide remarks please Disciple. Longtime editors in contentious topics are quite aware of NPOV[125]
   6. This is quite an intriguing approach. We could get this article down to about 3 sentences, after his birth in Queens etc.[126] (interestingly, a snide remark)
   7. There's no consensus for this. Why are you prolonging this pointless discussion?[127] in response to this comment where JFD...agrees with SPECIFICO.
   8. Trying to bump off a witness?[128]
   9. This thread is a testament to the power of the google machine to find a web-readable quotation that can be weaponized for SYNTH and equivocation. Are we done?[129]
4. As an aside, SPECIFICO here and here argues against longstanding consensus and says that Donald Trump "did not promote "misinformation" about [ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, etc]" but instead that "He caused his followers to take the drugs." and that discussions about this content is not relevant to the fringe theories noticeboard (including other content re: PCR/antigen tests SPECIFICO agreed was misinformation). All of this because "Lies ≠ Fringe".

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

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

Past warnings/sanctions against SPECIFICO, in reverse chronological order

"Simply put, there is no good answer here. A warning is simply insufficient, a topic ban is way overkill. I've blocked SPECIFICO for 48 hours as a standard admin action. Blocks serve two purposes, to stop disruption now and/or to act as a deterrent to undesirable behavior in the future. This block is obviously for the latter rather than the former. To be clear, SPECIFICO's final revert was against policy as breaking the Consensus Required restriction on the page. There was no BLP or other exemption under 3RRNO that could have applied, it was simply editorial preference. I don't think he is lying, but I do think he understood there was risk to the path he chose, and risks often have consequences. In this case, a block. While I'm quite sure this sanction is sure to displease everyone, and perhaps in equal measure but for different reasons, it was done after careful and long consideration." [130] 10 August 2022 "SPECIFICO is warned to be more civil in the American Politics topic area and Wikipedia more generally." [131] 25 May 2022 I-ban after this whole thing [132]. 26 December 2020 "SPECIFICO is topic-banned from Julian Assange for a period of 2 weeks per this AE request." [133] 5 November 2020 "SPECIFICO is reminded that being rude isn't particularly helpful in discussions, and it is a slippery slope that can lead to sanctions later." [134] 17 October 2020 "You are topic banned from editing material related to sexual misconduct allegations against Joe Biden for 1 week (until 20 May 2020)." [135] "SPECIFICO is given a logged warning as follows: SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions" [136] 9 April 2020 "SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is placed under the Anti-Filibuster, Courtesy in reporting, No personal comments, and Thicker skin sanctions described at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions for a duration of 1 year." [137]13 August 2018 "No action taken, but SPECIFICO is advised to use more caution going forward." [138] 15 June 2018 " Warned While the article is not under special editing restrictions, it falls under the post-1932 AP topic area and so extra care must be taken when editing. Being a veteran of this area, SPECIFICO knows very well that rewording or attempting to summarize what may be existing content can be quite contentious and edit warring to retain this rewording or new summary is in no way "reverting to longstanding stable content". This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus." [139], [140] "That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed." [141] 3 June 2018 [142] "SPECIFICO is reminded of the behavioral standards expected of Wikipedia editors, and warned that not following them in the future will likely lead to sanctions." [143] 20 May 2018 1-way I-ban [144]. 14 September 2014 TBAN from Ludwig von Mises and the Mises Institute [145]. 22 April 2014

Why is the project tolerating these behaviors, from a user who should definitely know better? Given that she has received numerous warnings for precisely this behavior? In this very thread, SPECIFICO has described JFD's conduct like this: there's been no willingness to slow down, moderate their tone and I don't think this editor has the temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles. when the most salient comment thread from uninvolved users above is that JFD's tone is conciliatory and collaborative. [146][147][148]

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

Survey re: TBAN for SPECIFICO

• Oppose - There are over 100 articles in the Donald Trump series. The main article alone has 155 archives and a current consensus of 60 items. Donald Trump articles are among the most difficult to edit of the 6.6 million in English Wikipedia. Editors foolish enough to edit them bear the scars as evidence. Through enormous effort resulting in innumerable sanctions over the years, the article is now in quite good shape and the remaining editors have reached a state where reasonably collaborative and well-structured discussion takes place. Then, a newcomer appeared with an account created in February. The TP is now difficult to wade through with discussions broken into pieces, an RfC improperly started by JFD and killed by an admin, posts by JFD edited after responses have been made, changes to the article made quickly without consensus, three claims of censorship by JFD, and placing an RPA flag in a post of mine that was in no way a personal attack, and also falsely claimed I was attempting to RGW. I didn’t include diffs as it would look like cherry-picking with so much commentary -- besides, it’s very difficult with all the activity and I’m not suggesting a block. But, I will link to the discussion JFD brought to my TP[149] and the discussion JFD brought to Bishonen’s TP where JFD continued to say I was at fault for the results of their poor TP editing practices, and where she asked JFD to “take your hints and sneers elsewhere”. [150]. It’s my humble opinion that JFD came to one of the most difficult articles in WP too early, in particular given that their very large number of edits to both the article and TP appears as though JFD was trying to take command of the article, ironic given the title of this filing accuses Specifico of such. Indeed, looking at the title of the filling, I find it odd that JFD would accuse Specifico of edit warring having just received a block for edit warring themselves four hours earlier from the same article. Smells like retribution. In any case, removing Specifico while allowing JFD to continue their bad behavior could damage one of the most widely read articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Provided links show that there is a violation of several policies on part of Specifico. Specifico refused to engage in consensus building process by being unresponsive and also made comments that were discouraging for other users to edit in a controversial topic area. While JFD should have reduced his editing pace, we should remember that WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:CIVILITY are policy and carry higher precedence than WP:BLUDGEON, which is an essay. Plus, from the block log, we know that this is not an isolated incident but a pattern of long standing problem.--81.214.106.114 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I think the comprehensive evidence raised above, and the history, supports the severity of the sanction. I would oppose any harsher sanction with this evidence. It is not impossible to be civil while editing on Donald Trump - I have some experience with the topic area. SPECIFICO will not be permanently removed, and many other editors will continue to edit the topic area. As to whether JFD should be removed, that is for editors to propose and discuss. If this is implemented, I hope that this will be the last sanction SPECIFICO receives, as I hope that she can improve her approach accordingly to avoid the behaviour listed above. starship.paint (exalt) 08:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, but only for a time-limited block within the proposed parameters. As others have noted above, these are not ideal circumstances for a sanction, as the events immediately precipating this discussion are mixed bag in which Specifico's conduct is not the only conduct needing alteration. But when the history of warnings and sanctions is layed out in full as above (and even without the block log added in), it's pretty clear that Specifico can be considered to have long been on-notice that they need to make some behavioural changes--even in circumstances where there is blame to go around.

In trying to thread that needle, a month long (or less) ban from the topic area where these habits are mostly on display makes sense in two regards: 1) emphasizing the community's diminishing patience, of course, and 2) giving Specifico a pause to consider the implications of being removed from the area where they are most productive, and to consider what needs to change to avoid that outcome. It also creates a record of the fact that the community is collectively hitting a threshold moment with the concerns about civlity and increasing the heat in already difficult areas, so that if Specifico refuses to head the message this time, we don't have to start this discussion over again for the nth time if we get here again, and we can instead contemplate whether the moment has come for a longer-term restriction. Others have said it and I'll repeat it, hoping it doesn't sound like a platitude: I would think Specifico is, from an abudance of evidence, more than smart enough to adapt here. But at some point the community has to drop the light touch with a community member with such a bombastic style of dealing with disagreement. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: TBAN for SPECIFICO

• @Objective3000: In any case, removing Specifico while allowing JFD to continue their bad behavior could damage one of the most widely read articles
  There are many multiple other editors on this page who disagree with JFD. I think those editors will be perfectly capable of reining in any misconduct from JFD and reporting it to the appropriate noticeboards/admins. I think from this entire thread and its response, JFD knows what they did wrong, was appropriately sanctioned, and knows their conduct will be under the microscope moving forward. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have seen no evidence that JFD takes to heart criticism. Why else would they make a filing against someone at ANI for civility, edit warring, and ownership when those are their problems -- particularly when they had just been blocked for edit warring four hours before the filing? Indeed, having Specifico thrown off the article will likely give JFD confidence to continue bad behavior. And yes other editors exist. But, we are at a very difficult period in history for this article given the subject's legal challenges and campaign. Frankly, the AMPol articles are so difficult, most admins are too intelligent to tread foot in them. (Even angels fear to tread therein.) This is the wrong time to weed out or chase away editors with the deep experience in those particular articles required to edit such an article, while welcoming someone clearly not prepared for the challenge who throws around accusations, misconstrues other editors' posts, and makes snide remarks -- even to an admin. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have seen no evidence that JFD takes to heart criticism.
  I think this thread shows that.

  throws around accusations, misconstrues other editors' posts, and makes snide remarks
  I agree, but I think we should use community tools to TBAN/short term block any editor who does these things in a way which drives other editors to leave the project. I've shown above instances in which SPECIFICO does all of these things (and more). If you provide diffs showing JFD doing such things, I would support a similar sanction for them. In their case, a 2 week TBAN given it would be their first instance of such behaviors. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Admitting error after a block in order to get the block lifted is not evidence of taking anything to heart. Flowers to a battered wife. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Have I violated WP:BRD since? Diff?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  And what you call a post taking to heart criticism was made nine minutes before what I would call this retaliatory filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  retaliatory filing (from JFD)
  I get why you say that. My interpretation differs, but I understand why that is your belief. But it doesn't mean the concerns expressed in this thread by editors other than JFD are without merit. Why would I be proposing a TBAN, since SPECIFICO hasn't (yet) tried to get me blocked? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Umm, I didn't say all proposals are retaliatory. First I've seen here in ages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think you may have misunderstood my intention. What I'm saying is: why does any of that have any bearing on the merits of this TBAN proposal? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have said what I came to say in the combination of my edits above. Don't really want to spend more time on this and have lost interest in the article given the current atmosphere, which is now likely to continue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The main issue present is at this page they removed the name of the person who did the killing (in the medical sense, not legal) throughout the entire article. [[151]]

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

Right after this they also switched "Penny approached Neely from behind, placing him in a chokehold" To "approached Neely, placing him in a chokehold" [[152]] Removing a key a detail without basis and effectively hiding it behind the large edit that now had to be reverted.

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

They've also made repeated edits around the use of "K2" by one of persons in the article that has had to be reverted several times by many different parties over the past week. [[153]] [[154]] [[155]] [[156]]

And this yesterday which was reverted twice, first by User:WikiVirusC and then by me due to NPOV [[157]] (Line 43, begining section & end)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main issue is I think the killers name, that I removed once (per policies), got reverted (I hadn't read all of the former [non]consensus talk on the name on Talk (back then just one any many non-RfC entries), (after this discussion here, that I'm first now seeing), reported WP:LIBEL a more serious policy violation, some one took action since that was actually a serious BLP violation), and I notified Nemov then when I struck out his incorrect statement regarding policy, in an RfC discussion, to not mislead others, and help him, and talked with him on his talk page, where he responded: Nemov: "I removed that bit by mistake. You can restore the pre-strike version if you wish."[158] I want to be very careful about editing it again, or even better if someone does it.

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

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

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

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

User:MaranoFan making false accusations of stalking, bad faith, and malicious intent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13:29, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan responds.

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

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

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

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

MaranoFan has put words in my mouth and refused to retract when given multiple chances, even when I did the same for them by striking certain comments. They have cast bizarre aspersions about me derailing their FAC nomination to win a Four Award competition to which I have no knowledge of. They seem to have preconceived notions that I continuously act in bad faith toward them as part of some secret agenda, which I find disturbing. Heartfox (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This user was not active on this peer review before my comments, and it is considered "too large to display" on WP:PR, there is almost no way they stumbled upon it through anything except going through my contributions. This comment was based on a misunderstanding, I just did not bother striking it since it was made on this user's own talk page. It, under no circumstances, "maligned [their] reputation at WP:FAC", as no one except them saw it. Heartfox, meanwhile, has pursued their outrageous aspersion based on a lie (which explicitly maligns my respect for the FAC process, and I have documented in the section below), at public pages like my nomination at FAC, which is currently transcluded right near the top of WP:FACGO and is amplified to the whole FAC community (pageviews: 312, 198). Pretending that this minimal amount of striking changes anything is ridiculous, since it is still clearly a bad faith comment. Yes, I have taken up a review of their current GAN because I wanted to thank them for their participation on my last few FACs. I took that up in good faith before they cast their aspersion on my nomination, not sure how that means I am "irked"... The above paragraph is just a bunch of random things thrown together to distract from their bad faith comment at my FAC, which they are fighting desperately to get restored for visibility at the main FAC page.--NØ 08:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Aspersions and bullying from User:Heartfox

Filing report I had been drafting as a subsection.

User:Heartfox produced a review for an article, slightly over an hour after I nominated it at FAC, which was unusually pessimistically worded and seemed off right away. Within the one hour of me having nominated it, they had self-admittedly gone through seven of my prior successful FACs looking for something that could be used to call my current FAC underprepared, which is an unusual amount of dedication as well. I addressed their decently lengthy review within a few hours. At this point, the nomination was going well and attracted a second review which was more positive. A while later, Heartfox was back and admitted their whole review had been addressed, but instead of supporting the nomination, they picked out a bit from a completely different peer review I had conducted recently (which did not involve or mention them whatsoever), and cast a bad faith WP:ASPERSION that would negatively impact future reviewer participation, that read: "Everything has been addressed, but because the nominator has characterized my indication of MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues as "moaning", I am not in a position to support as this feels disrespectful to my time and the process.". Since this included an admission that 100% of their comments had been addressed, and that they would refuse to further participate by indicating a !vote, I moved it to the talk page, something I had seen coords do before and that seemed relatively uncontroversial to me. They are now campaigning to get the aspersions restored on the main review page, despite it being pointed out again and again that my comment was not about them. They have now struck two words in their comment but it is still worded in a way which discourages reviewer participation on my nomination. They are now leaving passive aggressive messages on my talk page, and are still stalking my contributions and quoting comments I made on other users' talk pages. They have stated a bunch of times that all of their comments have been addressed, but they refuse to support my nomination which I think is indicative of their intentions. I am sorry but this seems like a dedicated campaign to embarrass me, which they concocted within minutes of me nominating this article. This user is an FAC frequenter, and I will not feel safe ever nominating another article if nothing is done about it. I apologize for bringing this to ANI but I have put in blood, sweat and tears developing my reputation at FAC over the years, and I think seeking an IBAN with this user to preserve it is worth it.--NØ 07:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Not much to add, Heartfox seems to have ran to ANI because I had indicated I will start a discussion about them here if their bullying continues. This seems like an effort to beat me in time to add some sort of credibility to their defense. And by bringing up some interaction between us from November 2022, that I had long forgotten about, they seem to have confirmed they were holding a grudge against me during their initial review itself. Given that they have now started a discussion to embarrass me here, after attempting this on my review page and by pinging FAC coords on its talk page multiple times (and now here), I am now formally seeking an IBAN as this has become too much to deal with.--NØ 07:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It would appear that a two-way IBAN would be helpful for both of you. @Heartfox: Any thoughts? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This is getting crazy. MaranoFan is mad that I had the audacity to refer to their previous nominations and how they are wasting reviewers' time with the same issues. I was involved in those past FACs and was one of the previous reviewers; of course bringing up previous nominations is relevant. I simply did basic research to get the exact number so as to not cast aspersions with no evidence, as MaranoFan has done repeatedly over the past few days. They continue to feel entitled to a support !vote and that its absence somehow indicates I had malicious intent going into the review and "concocted" a plan to embarrass them. MaranoFan has still not retracted the lies they wrote about my edits and intentions, and are now casting new aspersions. An IBAN because this user cannot take basic criticism, which, again, did not even involve an "oppose", seems like an attempt to evade any criticism of their FACs. Heartfox (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

No one is "evading any criticism of their FACs", all content-related comments at my FAC were met constructively and addressed. The last five paragraphs of essays written on my FAC have involved absolutely nothing related to the article in question. I am not sure why this user came to ANI if they are not seeking an IBAN. Seems to confirm that they are WP:FORUMSHOPPING to embarrass me on different pages and to get someone to validate their hatred for me. Everyone has not died. There are other people who can raise content-related issues on my future FACs. The fact that they are writing essays upon essays about how bad I am yet oppose an IBAN absolutely foreshadows such disruption repeating on my future projects. They had previously stated they would avoid me in the future, but they sought drama at another one of my nominations. This is a repeat habit with this user and they seem to enjoy publically bullying others to apologize. It is also worth noting they started an ANI discussion about me a few hours after I explicitly asked to be left alone. I am not sure how they want me to "retract" something I said in an edit summary... This blatant WP:ASPERSION intended to character-assasinate me to prospective reviewers is disruptive, it is not related to improvement of the article in question. I would be fine if they just did not support, but they left a comment to intentionally dissuade others from reviewing my FAC. If they had a problem with my comments at another PR it should have been brought to my talk page.--NØ 16:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Then what would you recommend? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That they be blocked for incivility unless they retract/strike their lie about my purported "wish to withdraw from the review process", their aspersion that I am "someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards", their aspersion that I am "still stalking [their] contributions", their aspersion that "this seems like a dedicated campaign to embarrass [them], which [I] concocted", their aspersion that I am "bullying" them, and their aspersion that I "ran to ANI" because MaranoFan had indicated they might do so (As I said at the top, I did so because they refused to retract lies after being given multiple opportunities). I have now struck the entire "moan" comment. Heartfox (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Very well. I will leave this to an admin to make a decision. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Striking seems random. FAC pages get a lot of views so I want the offtopic comment removed entirely. Once that's done, I am ready to hear what the other user wants me to delete.--NØ 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not random, I was following WP:RUC. Nonetheless, I have removed the stricken text per your request. Heartfox (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Is this an improvement? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

QuicoleJR, thank you so much for following this so closely and talking to me respectfully. I have never needed this more than in the past two days. Anyways, I have the same position about the IBAN.--NØ 20:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome, Marano. I know from experience how stressful the site can be at times, so I have been trying to counteract that for others. One question: Do you still support an IBAN? Your comment on that was a bit ambiguous. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That is a necessary step to prevent disruption going forward in my opinion. I am firm on that stand. The fact that I have been badmouthed as much as I have been over here but a voluntary IBAN has been refused makes me seriously question what's in store for the future. I haven't slept at all since this discussion erupted, and I doubt anybody here wants a repeat of this. A long-term solution like an IBAN is necessary. This section is getting lengthy so I'll leave the discussion to third parties now.--NØ 22:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for two-sided IBAN between Heartfox and MaranoFan

Starting a separate section to formally propose an IBAN, since above sections are too swarmed by long comments. The issues go further than just a few comments needing to be struck and comments from back in November 2022 have also been highlighted, indicating there are recurring problems with our interactions which are not bound to improve in the future. Voluntary IBAN has been rejected by the other user.

• Support IBAN as proposer.--NØ 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support for now. This seems warranted, and it does not look like the situation will improve, as they do not seem to be able to come to a compromise. However, the IBAN should exclude this ANI thread. All other ANI threads would be included, just not this one. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Temporarily struck because the situation may be improving. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have supported every FAC MaranoFan has nominated that I made a review for, and was about to for the most recent one until they harassed me at my talk page. If MaranoFan does not want a frequent support vote at their FACs, that's fine with me. They are the one who always comes to my talk page finding something wrong with my reviews. I really do not think about them as much they think I do. Why would I spent an hour reviewing in order to embarrass them. It's because I think the article has merit, not because I have some grudge against them. If I didn't like them I wouldn't have reviewed in the first place -_- They continue to try and drag me into their own muck. Heartfox (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Seems intractable at this point. --Jayron32 18:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment If this proposal is successful, we will need to G6 this. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I was uncertain about participating in this discussion. I have immense respect for both of these editors. It is a shame to see things between them go into this direction. I believe this is the best solution for this issue. I support MaranoFan's proposal for a two-sided IBAN. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Holy mother of pointless pettiness, did you two leap-frog eachother in making mountains of molehills, until an extremely minor disagreement about etiquette became a grudge match of wills. Even so, I have over the years become an extreme skeptic about the utility and wisdom of IBANs, believing that they are usually unnecessary and invite more problems than they solve, shifting responsibility from the users under the sanction to comport with basic behavioral guidelines and instead putting the community in the role of having to referee the bounds of their interactions. So I only support interaction bans where a fair number of criteria are met, and if it makes sense in the context of the volunteer workspace the two editors share. Here, I think it makes sense based on the context and nature of the underlying dispute, the distance between the two editors in coming to a meeting of the minds (as well some degree of intractability from both on just dropping the matter outright), the lack of other obvious community actions that can be taken under these circumstances, the impact of the IBAN upon each party (including the need of workarounds required to maintain the ban), and all other relevant factors.

Now, obviously MaranoFan has no objection to the IBAN. And HeartFox, while not all the blame for amping this situation up can be laid at your feet, I have to tell you that I view the filing here at ANI to have been excessive and unnecessary (if not outright histrionic) in the circumstances, so I'm inclined to say you're just going to have to live with this suboptimal outcome. I'm not really sure what heavier and unilateral sanction for MF you saw us handing out here on account of this whole tempest in a teapot, but I reluctantly have to agree that in this case the IBAN seems to be the only formal action that fits the disruption, such as it is. Both of you walking away voluntarily from this showdown over minor perceived slights to your honesty and reputation would have been better for everyone, but here we are. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I struck the comment MaranoFan felt was unfair, struck it more upon their request, and removed it entirely upon their request. They continue to do no such thing for their aspersions toward me, including lying about my actions (that I abandon FAC reviews in bad faith), lying about my intentions (They went to an FAC coordinator's talk page and said I concocted a plot to ruin their FAC because I want more Four Awards than them). They say I stalk them and have personal "hatred" for them. I do not consider accusing someone of hatred, stalking, and malicious intent "minor" slights. Why would I voluntarily allow myself to be maligned like this? I do not regret coming to ANI at all. Heartfox (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've reviewed every single page and diff you supplied above to support the conclusion you are being unduely maligned, and what I see is two editors who both failed to AGF at every possible checkpoint, and showed absolutely no restraint necessary to de-escalate at each point that one of you did take offense and decided you were being misrepresented. That's honestly my take on the way both of you comported yourselves here. And the statements that were made about you are so far below the threshold for a WP:PA that would benefit from community attention that I can't view your filing here as anything but an extremely poor use of community time.

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

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

Sarah SchneiderCH

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

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

1. Behavior towards other users:

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

For example, [159] my edits on the dabke page are wrong not because of any reason regarding the contributions themselves but because I am "a person belonging to a certain national thought, this is evident from his name and contributions (User Red Phoenician)...and the Lebanese Maronite with phoenicianism ideology)"

Again, this behavior is exhibited [160] where Sarah SchneiderCH, instead of arguing based on contributions, profoundly declares that "Upon investigation, it was found that the majority of the content in the article was contributed by two individuals who belong to the Arabic-speaking Christian communities, specifically the Arameans-Syriacs."...when in reality neither of the aforementioned users were of Aramean Syriac descent...with one of them coming from a Muslim family as they pointed out themselves on the same talk page.

Yet again, Sarah SchneiderCH tried this on me [161] by comparing a simple edit dispute to the Lebanese civil war. I assume this was a failed attempt at baiting an emotional reaction out of me. Regardless, it is still insensitive to make such a remark and takes the violation of not "treating editing as a battleground" to a new level.

These remarks (as well as their confusion between Armenian and Aramean [162]) make me suspicious of Sarah SchneiderCH's own claim of being a Maronite Lebanese/Palestinian (which I notice they have now removed under the claim "sharing the roots often leads to issues with fanatical individuals. When faced with a deadlock, these individuals resort to attacking or using them") and makes me question the credibility of said claims as a possible disguise created in order to get closer to certain topics and to be able to bully and harass other users of Levantine or similar background.

2. Removal of sourced information

Multiple times Sarah SchneiderCH has removed reliable and sourced information by simply slapping the term "original research" on it [163], [164] and replacing scholarly sources they do not agree with with wordpress blogs [165]. I do not know how to describe this other than vandalism. It seems countless pages related to non-Arab or indigenous peoples in the Middle East/North Africa have been edited by Sarah SchneiderCH in order to remove sourced genetic or cultural information. This is obvious POV-pushing and an attempt at turning everything MENA related Arab, erasing other ethnicities such as Maronite, Berber, Assyrian, etc.

3. Other issues

Despite the issues above, both myself and others have tried to communicate with Sarah SchneiderCH [166], [167], [168], [169], but our attempts seem to be fruitless as Sarah SchneiderCH seems either unable or unwilling to take our advice in regards to Wikipedia etiquette and POV-pushing. It became apparent to me that Sarah SchneiderCH was just being disruptive and nothing more when they ignored my responses to them on two talk pages [170], [171]. At first I had assumed that they had simply conceded as this is how many talk pages reach a resolution as they had not replied to me and were editing daily for 4 days straight without giving me a response. Thus, I decided to edit the pages and only then did Sarah SchneiderCH instantly revert and reply to me. (WP:GAME)

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

• OK, yes, this is a problem. There is POV-pushing and disruptive editing here. I am unsure how someone with 4000+ edits can remove a scholarly sourced article claiming that it's OR (or as she says, "original search") [172], but even more concerning is replacing a good piece of writing with this badly sourced (and almost certainly copy-pasted) nonsense [173]. I think we would wait for a response from the editor concerned, but given the sequence of events in the OPs Paragraph 3 I suspect we may be waiting for a while. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Although to be honest, given this re-adding of a BLP violation (admins only, I rev-deleted it), I suggest there's a bigger problem here. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I believe he has filed a complaint that his motive appears to be removing me from Wikipedia, thereby allowing him to act freely in the future. The editor made numerous attempts to emphasize the Phoenician aspect, yet my response to him in a parallel manner seemed to have provoked his anger, either here or there. In the article, Dabke was adamant about emphasizing the Phoenician aspect and took it upon himself to promote this viewpoint through a specific website. Furthermore, he introduced additional statements that were not originally mentioned on the same site, seemingly drawing personal conclusions. In the article about Lebanon, there were attempts to obfuscate the truth by presenting sources that do not confirm the claims, thereby falsifying the figures .a b c

Sarah, Red Phoenician can no more get you removed from Wikipedia than anybody else. Only you can remove yourself - by editing so tendentiously as to require blocking you to allow orderly editing and management of our articles. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• 1 Removing negationism, quoted source does not include said word and here Not all Protestants are Evangelical. He sees things from his perspective Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  • About (original search") , Elkamel, Sarra et al. (2021) wrote that: "Considering Tunisian populations as a whole, the majority part of their paternal haplogroups are of autochthonous Berber origin (71.67%) and in the same source (The Arabs from Kairouan revealed 73.47% of E-M81 and close affinities with Berber groups and in the Arabs from Kairouan clearly prevailed a genetic male background of Berber ancestry "Both are not mentioned in the article). I have reviewed the article and attempted to locate similar sources, but, I was unable to find any. There are many sources indicating the genetic diversity of Tunisians. Like in the same article (Tunisians mainly carry E1b1 haplogroup (55%) and J1 haplogroup (34.2%)) so most studies found that Tunisians are distributed between two major genes. Regarding the site, it has a lot of failures, for example here [174] Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites BUT the source retracted these claims.
  • Regarding the badly sourced nonsense. yes, I did not notice that they were from Bloggers and the editor removed it and I did nothing because he was right about it.
  • Regarding the last question that I have nothing to do with directly, I was just accomplishing my tasks in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlankPage/RTRC I saw that a piece of content was deleted, so I undoed it.

While I acknowledge that I may have made errors, it is important to clarify that these mistakes should not lead to accusations of vandalizing Wikipedia, as has been claimed. I intended to initiate a discussion regarding the removal of the original search on the discussion page, but I had not yet done so. I had planned to address this matter soon and as for Dabke , I reverted back and provided an explanation of my actions on the page. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, I think you did have something to do with restoring an unsourced attack on a living person. If you revert a deletion of content, you are taking responsibility for that content, and a quick scan of what you were restoring should have told a newbie editor straight away that it should not have been restored, let alone someone with 4000+ edits. If you're not doing that, you shouldn't be editing at all per WP:CIR. Black Kite (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Attar: I sadly experienced the negative behavior of the reported editor. Sarah goes straight to attack others and accuses them of what she herself do. In her first contribution to the talk page of the article Syrians, she wrote: "Upon investigation, it was found that the majority of the content in the article was contributed by two individuals who belong to the Arabic-speaking Christian communities, specifically the Arameans-Syriacs." [175]. She then continued to explain that based on this ethnic or religious background, the editors (me and another guy) have no integrity and our edits are POV pushing. I am not Christian, nor Aramean, nor Syriac. I then decided to use her logic against her but not in the same malicious way. I told her to edit the page of the Lebanese People to reflect their Arab identity (which is what she was demanding for the page "Syrians") which made her upset, telling me: "You should not talk to me on the basis that I have Lebanese roots or start comparing this and that" [176]. So, she doesn't like it if her "roots" were used against her, but she has no problem doing it herself.

Secondly: aside from her manners and constant assumption of bad will, she has an ideological purpose. She declared that she is on a mission: "I am working on neutralizing articles that refer to different ethnic and cultural groups, with a focus on avoiding conflating historical civilizations with contemporary societies" [177]. However, looking into her edits, it is mostly about Arabs and their identity. So, the mission is really pushing ethnic ideologies, which will be explained below.

Thirdly: she vandalized the Syrians page by deleting sourced material, re-writing the lead which has a consensus (see here for the consensus on the lead), and attempting to ignore reliable sources for the sake of her own conventions. Her argument was that "Syrian" is a nationality and therefore the article should discuss all ethnic groups of Syria. After I wrote a long sourced paragraph showing that "Syrian" is synonymous with the Arabic speakers of Syria, and therefore, according to academic consensus, the scope of the article should be about the Arabic speakers, she continued to revert to her preferred lead which is against the sources [178].

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

Sarah is just being disruptive and does not like it that she couldn't have it her way (because she did not have research and reliable sources on her side). Even after all her "concerns" were addressed, she refused to end the discussion, telling me that there is still a lot to be clarified! so vague!!. I asked her: what... and this was like 5 days ago and she hasn't reply yet. [179]

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

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

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

• This isn't OK. In edit summaries and article talk pages, focus on the content, not the contributor. If you do need to talk about a contributor, we have appropriate places to do that.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I acknowledge that my previous statement was inappropriate, and I should have refrained from using such language. This incident can serve as a valuable lesson for me, reminding me to respect boundaries in the future. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Well, that's a clear, unequivocal and totally satisfactory response. I propose that we close this without further action.—S Marshall T/C 15:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hello, in response to Sarah SchneiderCH's claims that I am seeing things from my perspective in these two cases [180] [181] I would first ask an admin to look at the source material for the quote in question [182]. I have already tried to explain multiple times [183] that the word Arab cannot be added into the quoted text because the source itself does not use this word. Secondly, I do not understand how all Protestants not being Evangelical is a form of my perspective in any way. Just because the source is the "evangelical-times" this does not equate to all the groups being evangelical as the source itself states "There are an estimated 20,000 Protestants in Lebanon. These comprise Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Church of God, Nazarene, Brethren and Charismatics." [184]. There is also the issue of them still claiming that the National Library of Medicine is not a reliable source.

  I cannot tell for certain if these repeated complaints are a result of incompetence or stubbornness. If they are a result of incompetence (which could be the case as Sarah SchneiderCH seems to have some trouble with the English language as shown in edits and talk page discussions pointed out earlier by both me and Black Kite, possibly meaning Sarah SchneiderCH quite literally does not understand what they are doing wrong) then they are not fit to edit on grounds of WP:COMPETENCE. However, if the issue is just stubbornness then not only is Sarah SchneiderCH being disruptive by going against sourced material they are just being problematic by ignoring my multiple attempts at trying to explain these issues to them and still trying to present them in front of administrators. (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)

  I do not believe that Sarah SchneiderCH is being genuine in their apology and is only trying to save face in front of the admins as firstly above this text they accused Attar-Aram syria and myself of the derogatory label of being Neo-Shu'ubiyyaists. This is derogatory on both political and ethnic levels to both of us as it is equivalent to accusing us of being "Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons." (WP:NPA#WHATIS) which is yet another violation of a personal attack. Secondly, Sarah SchneiderCH does not seem to understand how they are in the wrong as yet again they are trying to pull WP:GAME on me here [185] by accusing me of being the one who was actually ignoring them the entire time. I find this ironic as we had already been conversing back and forth on the talk page without mentioning one another and if you look at the very beginning of that particular dispute you can see it started with Sarah SchneiderCH themselves backtalking me and my contributions without mentioning me to allow me to respond. As Attar-Aram syria puts it "Sarah goes straight to attack others and accuses them of what she herself do." Also, the fact that Sarah SchneiderCH instantly saw my edit but not my reply on the talk page is contradictory as it would have showed up on their watchlist.

  At this point I believe a topic ban would best remedy the situation as Sarah SchneiderCH seems unable to control their personal hatred towards users of ethnic Levantine descent, which obviously affects pages related to such topics. However, as personal attacks in general are just wrong and with Black Kite pointing out that Sarah SchneiderCH's editing issues go beyond a specific topic (with Sarah SchneiderCH's themselves saying that "I have been an editor for over six years, even before officially registering on Wikipedia.", possibly meaning years of countless damage to pages and personal attacks against users who were possibly too hurt or frightened to object to this) a total ban may be necessary in order to avoid Wikipedia from going through a similar ordeal all over again in the future. Red Phoenician (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  • The issue at hand is that I don't oppose your effort to provide a more reliable source regarding ethnicities in Lebanon. However, I request that you present the proportions as mentioned on the website, without excluding any ethnic group. According to the CIA source, Armenians constitute 4% of Lebanon's population, which may have led to their exclusion along with other groups. Since there is objection and insistence on change, removing the current percentage could potentially resolve the problem, considering the objection at hand.
  • Regarding the reliability of the source, it does not mention Dabke at all, but instead focuses on the dance known as Phoenicia from Cyprus. Furthermore, the user introduced unrelated words into the discussion. If the issue pertains to including an image, it should be done in a manner that doesn't mislead the reader into perceiving Dabke as a Cypriot or Phoenician dance. This is particularly important as both the image and the source explicitly discuss the Phoenician dance, not Dabke. The image can be put up, e.g. (Images discovered in Cyprus depict the Phoenicians engaging in a circular dance). However, I fail to observe any connection between Dabke and the source claiming it to be a Phoenician dance rather than a Levantine one.
  • Attar, I believe the conversation exists, and the administrators have reviewed it, though I removed it. The reasons were explained, and I provided prior notification on the discussion page, stating that it was copied verbatim from a Wikipedia article. I noticed your objection, claiming that you had written it. Consequently, I refrained from restoring it. However, this doesn't imply that I am defending myself to the extent that you accuse me of playing the victim.

  I hope that the matter between me and the Red Phoenician will finally be resolved through the intervention of administrators or editors in these two articles, bringing the dispute to a close. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hello, this seems to be an attempt at moving the goalposts. I had not brought up the issues of the population percentage or the dabke talk page but rather was discussing the two issues that you had called me out on related to the quoted text from "Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East" and the Protestant≠Evangelical dispute. It seems Sarah SchneiderCH is trying to derail the matter at hand but regardless I will respond to these issues to make a point that Sarah SchneiderCH has a habit of repeating this behavior as it has now been the 4th or 5th time they have ignored these points and tried to change the subject. (Again Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) All of the modern numbers on Lebanon's population are estimates as there has been no official census since 1932 and it is possible that the Armenian percentage has become non-negligible because of the recent influx of Syrian refugees which is why it is important to show a distinction between Lebanese, Syrians, and Palestinians, otherwise it is reductive of the situation. As for the issue of the dabke I have already responded to the issues you are now presenting in the talk page and secondly it does not make sense that you are now advocating for the images to be added under this caption as they were already up before you removed them as "Depictions of dancing Phoenicians from Cyprus." It seems that you are now supporting the sources which you were so adamant on removing until the administrators called you out for it simply to save face in front of them. Also, Phoenicians are part of the broader Levantine culture unless you are arguing against this too.

  At this point it should be more than obvious that Sarah SchneiderCH is just going to continue a cycle of removing/ignoring sourced information or issues brought up, personally attacking other users, and then the playing victim. It seems from Sarah SchneiderCH's last sentence that they have taken the matter as a personal issue between me and them alone when the problem is not that at all. They are trying to antagonize me as the one behind this issue when they are the one who consistently makes personal attacks against both me and several unrelated users as already shown above and even in this talk page as I have mentioned earlier by labeling me and Attar-Aram syria as Neo-Shu'ubiyyaists.

  As Attar-Aram syria pointed out "She rarely produce any reliable sources but expect other editors to keep entertaining her opinions and endless discussions." It is likely Sarah SchneiderCH will continue to stall and move the goalposts around for as long as possible, as they have already done in multiple talk pages they are involved in[186], [187], [188], [189], [190], until an administrator arbitrates the issue. Red Phoenician (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Further comments by Attar: Im afraid Sarah is not sincere. She still think of herself as a victim by calling me and other editors Neo-Shu'ubiyyis, then just hours later claiming that she learned her lesson?! Also, Sarah, in her response to me, on my first batch of comments, claimed, falsely, that she "haven't made any changes to the Syrian article without prior discussion. Even those I have been discussing with here have agreed on the proposed changes". This is outright lying. She did not have any consensus when she removed 72,129 bytes of sourced text and arbitrarily re-wrote the consensus based lead [191]. This is why I reverted her. [192]. Sarah's problem is not only her attitude to other editors but her editing itself. She has no respect for consensus building and use the talk pages to prolong discussions till other editors get fed up and leave so that she can have her preferred version. She rarely produce any reliable sources but expect other editors to keep entertaining her opinions and endless discussions. She needs to commit herself to wiki rules of consensus and reliability, not only respect her fellow editors. She is removing sourced material and claiming that they cant be used until everyone agree (in the discussion about the Levantine dance called Dabke). However, Wikipedia is not a democracy of votes. Consensus is based on reliable sources, which she has failed to produce. Im not sure her apology regarding her usage of Red Phoenician's roots will resolve any of the issues and conflicts she is causing.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• It seems that Sarah knows no boundaries when it comes to removing sourced content that she dislikes without a discussion or rationalization. Example: she here eradicated the genetics section in the Tunisians page, deleting many sources, 0 explanation on the talk page. She also write misleading summaries, as here where she again tried to complete the eradication of the genetics section by claiming she was removing original research which turned to be a legitimate academic article. I have already indicated with evidence (diffs) how she did the same in the article of Syrians.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User 42.106.189.174

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

---

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

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

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

Further to this, after failing to clean my machine by removing a likely cookie and doing a quick google, I found this at https://www.myantispyware.com/2023/05/18/goldensmith-top-virus-removal-guide/ , so may be a deliberate attempt to spread malware: What is Goldensmith.top? Goldensmith.top is a website that engages in malicious activities. It tricks visitors into enabling spam browser notifications by using a fake CAPTCHA. Moreover, when users visit Goldensmith.top, they may get redirected to other websites that are unreliable and potentially harmful. Most people access these malicious pages through redirects caused by websites that use rogue advertising networks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

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

User:MrsSnoozyTurtle abuses AfD by escalating edit war

MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (MST) escalated an edit war ([193] [194] [195] [196] [197] straight into a badly justified AfD nomination [198], never discussing on the article's talk page where there have been discussions of notability, which MST ignored altogether. This in itself would not be worthy of mention on ANI. However, this abuse of AfD is a recurring behaviour which has been pointed out here before, see in this proposal for a topic ban of MST in a comment from User:ResonantDistortion

FWIW - there does appear to be a tendency to push articles to AfD as an escalation of edit warring - see for example this nom [199] which happened straight after this diff pointing out her edit warring [200]. Alsothis AfD nom appears to be an escalated edit war [201] per the talk page [202] and history. ResonantDis_tortion 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#Proposal_for_topic_ban 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

This report seems a bit backward--escalating to AfD given the lack of consensus regarding notability on the talk page is the appropriate thing to do, not edit warring nor tendentious. By sending it to AfD, it gets a broader community review. It would have been nice to see a more thorough AfD nomination statement, but jumping to recommend a ban seems like an overreaction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not hard to open a new section on the talk page to address the concerns, which all users involved failed to do. If concerns aren't addressed, then AfD could be appropriate; though I believe PROD would have more appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 16:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion at the talk page was stalled for nearly a month, with no clear consensus. I maintain that AfD was a reasonable choice of discussion venue at this time. PROD would be entirely inappropriate so long as anyone is lodging clear disagreement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the recent AfD discussions opened by MST, I do agree that there may be a problematic pattern of poorly considered nominations (although I would wait until after the discussions have reached their conclusion before trying to analyze them much, and there could be mitigating circumstances on a case-by-case basis). But I want to be quite clear that in general, escalating a stalled talk page notability discussion to AfD is not problematic behavior. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't quite clear enough, I opened this incident not because of this one AfD nomination itself. It's the disruptive behavioral pattern which involved edit warring over including a "citations needed" tag without giving any concrete sentences. When asked to provide evidence, instead of providing that evidence, MST proposed the article for deletion with poor justification. And this incident is just one in a long line, see all the previous ANI discussions. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Callmemirela I don't quite understand your sentence: It's not hard to open a new section on the talk page to address the concerns, which all users involved failed to do. What should I have discussed on the talk page (or did you not include me in the "all users"). MST never substantiated which sentences needed citations. They should have placed in line citation tags or discussed on talk. This is the chronology:

- 1. MST "Added {{More citations needed}} tag"

- 2. Smartse "Undid revision 1155241771 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) everything is sourced?!"

- 3. MST "Restoring tag- unfortunately many sentences aren't.

- 4. AncientWalrus (me) "Undid revision 1155378972 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk): MrsSnoozyTurtle it would be very helpful if you could discuss the concrete sentences you would like citations for on the talk page"

- 5. MST "Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bogner." AncientWalrus (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

How I see it is that despite edit summaries, a section should have been started to address the issue. Edit summaries are one thing and are the main reason discussions don't occur on talk pages. I see there's one about notability but none about MST's POV. Whether she answers or not is another issue, but at least a discussion was attempted. I see one or two sentences that have no sources, but overall I see no issues with the article. Callmemirela 🍁 16:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that the discussion link inside the greenish part above goes directly to comments by me, and I agree with the list of the numerous previous ANI threads at the end of the opening post. The most recent of which was a mere month ago: [203]. It's worth noting this recent comment of hers: [204]. I can AGF that she might avoid commenting in these ANI complaints because of the stress, but there also becomes a point at which it simply becomes the proverbial "ANI flu". There has been, repeatedly, a consensus of giving MST another chance in the hope that there will be improvement. But I think that we are where the WP:ROPE has run out, and we shouldn't keep repeating the same consensus in the hope that something different will happen this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You articulate my reasoning for opening this incident well. It's not so much that this particular incident justifies action, it doesn't if it were isolated. Their other AfD nomination from today is similarly low effort and obviously unjustified. Or see this recent comment by an editor to another one of MST's nominations:

Keep. Plentiful sources exist. Please see WP:BEFORE; it is preferred to search for sources before nominating rather than making others do the work. Casinos in most of the U.S. are significant economic actors that attract at least regional media coverage of every chapter of their development. See for example: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] User:Toohool 19:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IP_Casino_Resort_Spa

Full nomination record is here for convenience. It is surprising how someone with more than 30k edits seems to make such mistakes. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• I see we're back here again. I assume we'll be going with the usual mechanism of MST not commenting here until days after everyone else has stopped, perhaps with another wikibreak that has people saying we should "wait until they're back and can defend themselves before making any decisions". Rinse and repeat over and over again. I still stand by what I said in the previous two ANI discussions that a ban on all AfD nominations and usage of PROD (after the whole PRODing of Tufts University nonsense) is the best option here. They can still vote in AfDs, as I haven't seen problems with that in the past, but it is very plain that their ability to judge notability conflicts with their rather strong belief that any articles made by a new account are inherently promotional no matter what. Of course, the latter if true would usually just mean cleanup is needed for notable subjects, but MST seems to always escalate to AfD and waste all of our collective time. Silverseren^C 16:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. A (limited time) ban of AfD nominations and PROD would help avoid unnecessary work. If MST thinks an article should be deleted, they should comment to that effect on the talk page. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Personally, I find it interesting to look at the ANI reports opened on MST that were mentioned by the OP.

• First one - opened by a new-ish and now indeffed account
• Second one - opened by an IP
• Third one - opened by an account with <20 edits
• Fourth one - opened by the same IP range as the second one
• This one - opened by an editor here for less than two months with a good knowledge of the history.

• Quite remarkable, really. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Black Kite Are you suggesting I am a sock of the IPs/accounts? I have nothing to do with the other people who previously reported at ANI. I found the history simply by doing a search in the "Search Noticeboards Archive" box for MST. Not rocket science at all. Did I miss ANIs on MST? I don't think so. This account (AncientWalrus) was created as a WP:ALTACCOUNT for retaliation protection reasons, for further background see my SPI reply. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting anything. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person whose "something is awry here" detector pings a bit when they see a fifth ANI that has been started against a single editor and not a single one from an established editor. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe or maybe not, but that seems a separate matter given that SilverSeren has endorsed the concerns raised by AncientWalrus. WP:SPI is thataway if you have concerns in this regard, but the points raised in this thread appear legitimate, and this tangent, while it may have merit, should not distract from other issues raised here. --Jayron32 18:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Black Kite Aren't most ANIs started by non-established editors? Or how do you define "established editor"? I thought ANI was for pointing out intractable, chronic, disruptive behaviour. This was my first interaction with MST. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• In addition to SilverSeren and AncientWalrus, it's me too. I don't think it's too informative to simply consider who first opened each of these multiple ANI threads. Instead, it's important to recognize that multiple established editors have repeatedly confirmed that there are, in fact, some significant problems. In past ANI discussions, I've documented ways in which MST has behaved disruptively towards the Article Rescue Squad (who also have some unclean hands, as well). I guess I can go back and post those yet again, although I also remember Black Kite having taken part in some of those discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, and there are so many battleground editors in the inclusion/deletion wars that are blocked, banned or topic-banned from the subject that one has to be aware when any ANI against an editor in the area is opened. Having said that I am obviously prepared to AGF on AncientWalrus given the explanation. Black Kite (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks. That's entirely reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

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

• Here in this edit and in this edit to their userpage, AncientWalrus seems to be indicating that they are a sock account being used by an established editor to edit articles related to a certain organization, hiding some other identity in order to avoid retaliation. Or am I mistaken? Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Seems like it, since GISAID is known for excessive legal retaliation for anything they deem to be negative towards the organization. I can say that I would not want to edit the GISAID article or Peter's with my account openly. I assume you brought this up to refute Black Kite's claims above? Silverseren^C 18:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I thought it was relevant to clarify these facts a little more publicly with a few diffs so that those posting their thoughts have some more background knowledge before they comment. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• That's correct. GISAID is known to retaliate, in bioinformatics circles this is very well known, only recently has it been covered in reliable sources, but that doesn't mean the retaliation can't be real. The original account has not been used in a while though. I'm considering adopting this one as the main one (fresh start) and just being more careful about revealing my identity in the future in general. I edited Wikipedia as a young adolescent, mostly as IP, then mostly typo fixes under previous account for a while, and now more active under this account. Here are some reliable sources to peruse for more information on GISAID: [205] [206] [207] [208] [209]

AncientWalrus (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, and I hope we can set the issue of "who opened this complaint" aside, and get back to the topic at hand. I would be in favor of some sort of editing restriction for MST. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

What sort of editing ban though? Mast's enthusiasm is great. If they showed it more on talk pages and less in edit wars/nominations that would be amazing. Maybe they can be nudged by a temporary ban on PROD and AfD nominations? AncientWalrus (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I proposed one, and you linked to my proposal in your opening post. As of now, I think the simplest approach, the one least vulnerable to wiki-lawyering, would be a ban from anything deletion-related, broadly construed. Of course, that may not get support, so there could instead be some specific things banned from. There is no need to make it temporary, because any such restriction can be appealed after a period of time demonstrating good conduct. But this time, I'm probably going to let someone else propose it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I won't propose it as it could be get (wrongly) dismissed as "yet another inexperienced SPA complaint." AncientWalrus (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope that multiple editors will discuss the plusses and minuses of various options here, and then we can collectively see what might or might not get consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Hello all. As far as I'm aware, the OP hasn't attempted either discussing this on my Talk page or any dispute resolution before bringing this to ANI? Nonetheless, I agree that this AFD nomination was a mistake and I apologise for that. I have now withdrawn the AFD.

  The nomination was based on a genuine concern about the BLP's notability, however I also apologise if it came across as a retaliation for my Citation Needed tag being removed. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for replying here, I really appreciate that. Thanks also for speedily keeping the Peter Bogner article. I first wanted to discuss this on your talk page, but when I realized that there had been discussion of the exact behavior (ignoring WP:BEFORE) on ANI and yet the pattern seemed to have continued I decided it would be more appropriate to raise it here.

  What do you think of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yang_Bing-yi? Shouldn't this also be speedily kept? Or this one Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DMARGE.

  Can you explain why you did not open a discussion on the article's talk page when you were asked which sentences in particular you felt required citations? Did you read the talk page and see that there had already been extensive discussion regarding notability? If yes, why did you not first reply on the talk page voicing your disagreement? If you did not read the talk page, why not? AncientWalrus (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I note that you have already deleted the ANI notification from your user page. The fact that you are WP:BLANKING rather than archiving your user talk page is another aspect why I felt it would be more productive to raise this issue here. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  There's no issue with doing that. An editor is deemed to have read the message if they remove it from their talkpage (and MST obviously has read it, because they've responded here. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, no issue with blanking. However, there's a pattern that feedback on MST's action, even provided repeatedly through ANI is not taken into account and actioned in future behaviour. I would say the blanking is consistent with the general attitude to ignore community feedback. AncientWalrus (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm seeing two things here that give me a disheartening sense of deja vu. First, with regard to the issue of the message blanking, I keep seeing ANI threads about MST in which someone raises an issue that is an insignificant issue, leading to extended discussion about how that wasn't such a big deal, and then leading to nothing being done. The problem is that real problems get lost amid the noise. The second is that MST comes briefly to ANI to respond by saying sorry to the specific complaint raised in the opening post, without acknowledging anything else. The problem is that uninvolved editors are led to conclude that the dispute has been resolved. But then, problems just keep happening again. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Convenience break (TB proposal)

• So, having just said that, I want to bring this discussion back around to what I believe is a long-term and continuing pattern of problems, all related to deletion, and all going beyond run-of-the-mill disagreements over deletionist versus inclusionist leanings. First, please look back to last fall, and scroll down to the comments made there by David Eppstein about MST repeatedly draftifying clearly notable biographies, apologizing when alerted about it, and then going back and resuming the same thing: [210]. Then, look here: [211], from earlier this year. The number of issues with experienced and clueful editors having deletion-related concerns gets too large for comfort. This included a facepalm-worthy PROD of Tufts University. In that discussion, there are multiple other stubifications, draftifications, and PRODs that get pointed out. In addition, I provided these diffs of her edit warring WP:POINTy edits at the ARS noticeboard: [212], [213], [214], and [215], which are just representative examples of multiple other such edits (and yes, ARS is not without problems itself). She also has a history of accusing editors who disagree with her of "canvassing" when they are not: [216]. Taken as a whole, this reflects an approach to deletion that treats it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We must not lose sight of that, or we'll just be back here at ANI yet again. Each time, there is a very limited apology, followed by recividism. I'm thinking about how to construct an editing restriction that will help, without going too far. It seems to me that dubious AfDs, although they can waste other editors' time, are easily resolved through discussion before harm to content occurs. But stubbing, draftification, and PRODing, are more disruptive, and maybe there should be a community ban against doing those three things. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Haven't really been following the MST saga, but what reasonable editor would PROD Tufts University? (What would be next, Northeastern?, Emerson?, until only Harvard and MIT were left?) That alone was probably sanction-worthy behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's the thing. MST seems to take actions that are way outside the Overton window. If you point one instance out, they apologize, but it has no bearing on similarly unreasonable actions in the future. There's also a general carelessness, which they don't seem to be fixing. In the case I opened this incident with, they apologized (narrowly) and closed themselves with speedy keep. However, in the process, they made mistakes that show they don't care about following process, meaning others have to clean up after them. That's not respectful of other Wikipedians time. It's either a case of extreme carelessness or Wikipedia:Competence is required. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think the criticism of my self-close of the AFD is going a bit far. I tried to do the right thing, but didn't notice that the italic text meant that it needed to be changed when copy-pasting. A simple and easily fixable mistake. This is also why I am reluctant to comment much at ANI, there are some people who look negatively on everything I say and try to use it against me. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Just checked: Tufts University was created in September 2002, is almost 120k long, has 168 citations and over 1,500 editors who have made over 4,000 edits. Anyone who PRODS an article like that, even if they never heard of Tufts (which is not my alma mater), really doesn't belong on en.wiki as anything but a reader. Such grossly bad judgment deserves, at least, a general topic ban from nominating for XfD and SD, PRODding, DRAFTifying or stubbing anything on en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support BMK's proposed topic ban, ample evidence has been presented that MST creates many more problems than is worth it in the realm of assessing articles for deletion (or equivalent). --Jayron32 17:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support the proposed topic ban as well. BMK's proposal is similar to Silverseren's above and Tryptofish's back in a previous ANI. Per Wikipedia:Competence is required. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support the topic ban, as proposed, for all the reasons I've already said just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support the proposed topic ban, since this is actually being proposed now. I feel it should have been done the previous times we were all here when the Tufts incident itself, among others, happened. But I'm glad we're getting to it now, especially since it is clear that the problematic actions were not curbed since the previous ANI discussion (nor ever, it seems). Just a trend of quiet, minor editing for a few weeks after each time and then back to the same old behavior once the attention has cleared. We shouldn't have to keep going through this again and again every couple of months. Silverseren^C 00:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support the topic ban, and encourage MrsSnoozyTurtle to spend a year or two focusing on content creation as opposed to content deletion. After four months, I am still not able to wrap my head around the bizarre and inexplicable PROD of Tufts University, but I am always prepared to accept that an editor made a one-off error. However, all the links provided above show that this is a chronic problem, not a single spectacularly bad decision. Apologies about single incidents are insufficient when there is a chronic pattern of problems. The editor needs to prove over time that she is here to build this encyclopedia, rather than to disassemble it piece by piece. Cullen328 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support The topic ban. The deletion participation as documented above has been egregious Jack4576 (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Given both the previous highlighted and current issues, there is a pattern of slowly dissembling the project rather than building it. This includes creating an environment that does the opposite of nurturing and guiding new editors. I concur with above that a period focused on content creation would be beneficial. ResonantDis_tortion 07:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Dissembling? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies - you are quite right. I meant disassembling. ResonantDis_tortion 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. This seems to be repeated AfD behavior. Also I don't like the editor's reply of not engaging in discussion here in the ANI threads. AGF works both ways. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Update I'd suggest to move ahead with the topic ban before MST does more damage. They seem to maybe even have increased their disruptive deletion related behavior. In the last 24hr:

• Tagged Lilt (company) for speedy deletion under WP:G11, after they had PRODed two days before. That PROD was reverted by User:Kvng. The CSD was reverted by User:BigHaz who left a comment on MST's Talk page (but may have missed the fact there's an ANI on MST, given that MST has already removed the notification). They the proposed the article for deletion. MST's behavior shows insufficient understanding of policy, and no desire to change this state despite taking a large number of deletion related actions. They create a lot of work for without much benefit.
• Requested speedy deletion of Moshe Reuven despite obvious notability. Request was declined by User:Bbb23
• PRODding an academic biography, even though the professor has a named chair (WP:PROF) and has won a major prize
• PRODed Center for Advanced Materials, reverted by BigHaz and this is just as selection. Almost all actions were deletion related, no content creation. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Trying my best to stay out of this one, since I've apparently tripped over a can of worms and an ants' nest, but you're right that I didn't know about the ANI here. I'll admit I was a bit surprised, after checking what the user has been up to, that nobody had seemed to discuss the matter earlier, but hadn't got as far as looking for discussions, if that makes sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I want to clarify -- in light of comments made at another AfD TBan discussion on this page -- that I worded the TB proposal as I did so that MST would not be barred from commenting at AfD, only from making nominations, PRODing etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's the Colette Henry incident that tips this over the line for me; attempting to delete articles on notable academics is one of the many patterns of past poor behavior that MST has long-ago apologized for, promised to be more careful about, and is now doing again without evidence of more care. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Just to note that I posted on MST's talk page to suggest the probability of this being closed relatively soon, so if MST wanted to comment on the discussion, they should do so sooner rather than later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Request a ban for Flamelai

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

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

@Courcelles After thought again, is this a compromised account? Do we need a check for account's security? Their edits not only here, but also on Chinese Wikipedia are both becoming messy recently. -Lemonaka‎ 19:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

There's only one edit within the time limit of CU here, so I'm not sure it would show anything useful no matter if the account was compromised or not. I'm surprised to see 100,000+ edits on zhwiki compared to such useless edits here these last years. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll contact Chinese community ASAP. Very strange behaviour for such an established user. -Lemonaka‎ 19:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

UPD:zh:Wikipedia:傀儡調查/案件/Flamelai CU requested on Chinese Wikipedia -Lemonaka‎ 08:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Please close this case. On Chinese Wikipedia they confirmed account was not compromised. -Lemonaka‎ 07:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Hemiauchenia

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

Diffs:

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

Past incivilty:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To explain the context of what Dronebogus is going on about here, on Commons, Dronebogus uploaded self-drawn highly graphic nsfw artwork of anime Wikipedia mascot Wikipedia-tan, who is usually depicted as a cute little girl, which Dronebogus claimed was "aged up". In August 2022. I nominated this file for deletion, [217] and the file was deleted following the input of multiple pariticipants. I recently mentioned this during a file for deletion discussion, which Dronebogus has claimed was an attempt at hounding him. Other than reverting him from my talkpage with additional comments, I have made no further attempt to engage with him about the matter at the file discussion or restore the remark after DroneBogus removed it. As far as I am aware, I have not interacted with Dronebogus since the original deletion discussion until now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is in essence what Hemiauchenia said in those diffs: "Hey remember when you drew those creepy lewd pictures of our mascot and everyone agreed they were terrible and sucked? Ps. Go away, I have no respect for you as an editor, and you are barely tolerated on this website as is." Obviously that's very out of line and in my opinion, deserves a formal warning or sanctions. Accusing someone of drawing "highly sexualised drawings of a character depicted as a minor" is a grave allegation. Serious accusations require serious evidence, and I don't see it. It's certainly possible to draw Wikipe-tan as an adult e.g.[218]. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I clarified in another edit summary on my talkpage that Dronebogus claimed she was drawn as an adult and that I was not personally accusing him of drawing child porn. However, current Wikipedia ArbCom member Beeblebrox said in the image deletion discussion You're basically making your own child porn. You should probably stop talking now. [219], and there were other comments by jps along similar lines. Rhododendrites remarked Regarding the "as an adult" part: While not child pornography itself, if you're inspired by a child to draw a sexualized grown-up version of them, that's still creepy as hell [220] Again, I would rather this matter just be dropped. I don't want to anatagonise Dronebogus further over this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Regarding the (implied) "is Wikipe-tan a child" question: the answer is sometimes. You can take a look at a gallery of the original artist's drawings here. In some pictures she is, in some it's ambiguous and in some, she clearly isn't e.g. [221][222][223] In my opinion [224] summarises it pretty well. Based on that I think it is somewhat unfair to characterize tan definitively as a "child character" and draw conclusions on that basis. I have no idea what Dronebogus actually draw as the file is deleted, but I doubt the "basically child porn" label was warranted, and that was probably conduct unbecoming from Beeblebrox et. al.. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

ErnestKrause disruption at GAN

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

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

When challenged at WT:GAN#Problematic reviewer, six uninvolved editors (including myself) raised concerns and asked for ErnestKrause to self-revert, but they've doubled down and left walls of text [225] [226] which fail to acknowledge the massive issues with their reviews. In the first of those two diffs, they claim talk page comments made twenty years ago justify their actions, and also claim they are acting with the support of User:Z1720, who promptly completely refuted this and exposed it as a complete lie [227]. User:Mr rnddude pointed out [228] that ErnestKrause has recently engaged in similar disruptive behavior elsewhere on the project. Sanctions are clearly needed to prevent further disruption to the project. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Earlier today Ajpolino left a message on the GAN Talk page and below as to offer the best solution to restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page which I'm in full agreement with. I've previously stated that I did not know how to restore the internal GAN script queues for GANs, and Ajpolino was able to restore them with about a half dozen edits from his much higher experience level than my own at Wikipedia. I'm accepting Ajpolino's statement about the importance of preserving consensus on the Gan Talk page regardless of the number of books that I've read about the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. I'm accepting Ajpolino's comments and edits for assuming good faith and restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Noting Ajpolino's comments (and rightfully sharp rebuke of ErnestKrause's activity wrt these GANs) came over an hour after I opened this thread. Your wording here implies, whether or not that was your intent, that I made this post after Ajpolino's comments, when the reverse is true. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

And what about your misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, ErnestKrause? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

ErnestKrause disruptive at WT:GAN and elsewhere

 I filed the below report shortly after Trainsandotherthings above, so am subsectioning this, ErnestKrause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the eponymous subject of WT:GAN#Problematic reviewer, having been persistently disruptive in the GA process in recent days. Their first actions were to fail a series of reviews on the Federalist Papers (Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1, Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1, and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1) with faulty, bad faith-riddled logic that baffled not only the nominator, Thebiguglyalien, but the four other editors (myself, Trainsandotherthings, Premeditated Chaos, and Chipmunkdavis) who initially replied.

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

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

EDIT: Based on the above evidence, I would be in favour of a topic ban from the GA process and warnings for sealioning and assumptions of bad faith. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 Remark: I had originally replied to Trainsandotherthings' report, then AirshipJungleman29 made their separate report, demoted it to h3, and so, as my reply pertains equally to both, and as discussion should develop in a single thread, I have created the h3 'Discussion' and moved my comment under both reports—Alalch E. 20:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

ErnestKrause wants the Federalist Papers content to be organized in a certain way, i.e. for certain articles to be merged (for example, look at Federalist No. 5 in relation to Federalist No. 4) and this conflicts with his role as a GAN reviewer. ErnestKrause should have recongized this internal conflict and taken reasonable steps to avoid a non-constructive resolution of said internal conflict. Such as discussing. Maybe seeking advice. Maybe starting a merger discussion. ErnestKrause shouldn't be trusted to do more such reviews in the foreseeable future; at some point he should be able to demonstrate that he understands that these sorts of quickfails are the worst of several possible outcomes. One way to address the perceived problem could have beeen to accept the review, hypothetically pass, and then propose a merger. No big deal really. Surrounding conduct like the ridiculous wikilawyering about upgrading to B-class was bad. Therefore: ban ErnestKrause from reviewing GANs.—Alalch E. 19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

While the evidence is bad, I am holding out for a bit in case ErnestKrause responds. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Although I would at the very least recommend G6 deletion of the reviews of No. 3 and No. 4 and renomination of them and No. 2 to fix the mess. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note I've restored the three GANs in question to the GAN queue at their original positions, collapsed/archived the EK reviews, and pulled them off the talk pages. You can still see them at the GA subpages 1, 2, 3 (or rather 2, 3, 4). Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• I had hoped it wouldn't come to this: ErnestKrause is clearly a highly competent editor who has successfully nominated two articles for Featured Article and several more for Good Article status, and I was hopeful that multiple experienced editors explaining their concerns with his actions would prompt some self-reflection. His most recent response does not suggest that. Indeed his suggestion that he is in opposition to six of you who appear to love all the edits from BigAlien under any circumstances strikes me as an agressively bad-faith reading of the discussion. I hope that EK will take seriously the objections that have been made about his conduct here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  The comment you highlight really was the single biggest thing that pushed me to start a thread here. I am not carrying water for anyone, and the suggestion that this is some sort of partisan act in opposing obvious misconduct and ignorance of the GAN process really shows continuing poor judgement and inability to accept ever being wrong. These are traits that are antithetical to both GAN and a collaborative project in general. You can disagree with someone without accusing them of conspiracy or bad faith, without any evidence. I've had precisely zero interactions with ErnestKrause before this as far as I can remember. I'd be objecting if anyone made this series of edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Just a note that if an admin decides this case is closed, I do think it would best if EK provides a response to the charges of misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, which they have declined to respond to on multiple occasions by this point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  As no such response seems to be forthcoming, mark me down as supporting a topic ban from GAN and a formal warning re sealioning and ABF. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Alejandro Basombrio 2.0

Well, I attempted to assume good faith, but Alejandro Basombrio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been continuing disruptive edits. They have already been brought to this board before by Vipz, but no resolution occurred. So, not only have they consistently disregarded warnings on edit warring[1][2][3][4][5], single-purpose account activity,[6], canvassing[7] and POV pushing violations [8][9][10], they have now assumed a username similar to mine. It is obvious that we have a case of WP:NOTHERE and I am recommending a block for a period that can be decided agreed upon by other users and administrators. WMrapids (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Block and don't look back.—Alalch E. 20:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The new username is alone worth blocking. Any disruptive editing just makes the issue worse. Indef them. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: I usually don't advocate for an indefinite block because I'm hopeful for users, but I agree in this case since they seem to be taking edits personally and especially because of WP:NOTHERE.--WMrapids (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The impersonation is my main issue, the other stuff just cements it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That global rename needs to be undone, stat. It's nothing but a form of harassment.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. That username change is completely inappropriate (not even counting their other behaviour). — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure why AN/I is so heavily clerked; a block is not always the end of the discussion and leaving a thread open for a bit will keep it from being fractured if there are addition issues that need addressing. There are times when I've gone to add a checkuser result or further pertinent info to a discussion to find it closed within minutes of a block. In this specific case, is anyone aware of the best way to have the rename undone? It was clearly done to harass WMrapids.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize for closing it early, Ponyo. I figured that when a remedy happened, the discussion was over 9 times out of 10. Also, discussions closing mean admins can more was find other, open discussions. I am sorry for the inconvenience. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't doubt it was a good faith closure (and you weren't the first to do so). It's just irksome, which is why we don't have designated AN/I Clerks despite it being somewhat of a perennially proposed on the talk page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Ponyo: Thank you, because that was going to be a question I wanted to raise regarding the similar username. Speaking of CheckUser, has there been any mention of associated accounts in the past? There has been persistent abuse of socks on Peru-related articles, so we want to be safe with that (or on top of any accounts that come from nowhere).--WMrapids (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If you think this is a sock of a specific master, an SPI should be started. Checkusers can't really check accounts unless there is evidence of abuse of multiple accounts.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I asked the global renamer about undoing the rename.—Alalch E. 22:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth posting a request at Meta:SR/U? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that will indeed be the correct thing to do if the global renamer who had handled this doesn't respond in a few days.—Alalch E. 17:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

AI generated articles, major BLP issues

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

---

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

@Xx78900: can you be more specific here? Why do you think these articles are AI-generated? Which sources are fictional? I've checked a few of them, and they're all correct. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ve just done the same. There are a couple that aren’t very good, but they all seem to work. They’ve got old access-dates, but that’s a symptom of the text having been copy and pasted whole from the ‘parent’ articles of the subjects at hand. That’s suboptimal, but not a sign of AI, nor a criterion for speedy deletion (the copying is attributed in edit summaries in the article histories). — Trey Maturin™ 23:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Didn't see the attribution in Higgin's article so I went ahead and added it. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Ingenuity I'm not sure what happened here, definitely some issue on my end. Last night when I followed the links none of them worked for me, but they're working for me now. Apologies, I have no idea why that happened. Xx78900 (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There are so many issues with this report I don't even know where to begin. First, you did not notify BreadSuperFan36 of this discussion as you are required to; I have done this for you. Secondly, how did you come to the conclusion this is AI-generated or that every single source is fictional? A spot-check of the sources show they appear to verify the information they are citing. And thirdly, the text clearly does not resemble AI generated text, especially considering the text was written into other articles pre-dating LLM by several years (GPTZero, albeit a flawed program, also clears the text). Curbon7 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7 I definitely made a mistake here. Not sure why, but last night none of the links worked for me, kept bringing me to pages that didn't exist on archive.org. They work just fine this morning. Also I thought the @ symbol pinged people, my apologies. Sorry for wasting everyone's time! Xx78900 (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Usernamekiran

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

---

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

Do you have any specific examples of misconduct from this user? A cursory glance through their edits doesn't reveal anything. There's nothing inherently bad about spending time on talk pages, userspaces, or noticeboards. — Czello ^(music) 08:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Czello This is an obvious case for Wikipedia:BOOMERANG -Lemonaka‎ 10:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure how to respond to this. But to put everything in short: I never pretended to be admin. I always try to be polite, and helpful. I definitely do not scare other editors. Currently, I am not adding much content — mostly gnoming, or technical edits. I often visit PERM, and other noticeboards, and give my opinion if I know the scenario/situation, or the editor in discussion. I am not watching this thread, but if my response is needed, then kindly ping me. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This complaint is without merit. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, Czello, and Lemonaka: would it be okay to simply remove this complaint (blanking)? I would have boldly removed a meritless complaint if it was about some other editor. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that should be left to an uninvolved admin. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

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

PBLOCK request

2A02:214A:8000:0:0:0:0:0/36 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

House of Fame (Greek TV programme) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Oh my god. That's a lot of reverting. Since it's been going on for quite a long time, I've requested temporary page protection. I'm surprised they haven't been blocked before, considering their constant disruptive edits on a variety of pages. therefore, I support the PBLOCK. Dinoz1 (chat?) 13:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Rapid fire date changes

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

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

They've now replied at their user talk page, so hopefully they'll stop now. Woodroar (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

They've stopped since you left a message on their talk page. Considering that was the only warning you gave him, you should wait for a bit before requesting a block. Dinoz1 (chat?) 14:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

They stopped after the ANI notification, yes. But they made 14 more date changes after my initial message. Woodroar (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

In this case, I recommend you to assume good faith. The user likely ignored the message. Now that they've stopped and replied, it was likely they didn't mean any harm to the Wiki. Dinoz1 (chat?) 14:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

They made 5 additional date edits since acknowledging the message. Callmemirela 🍁 14:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Darn it. Guess it's time to pull out ol' user warnings! Dinoz1 (chat?) 14:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

and they've proceeded to ignore the message and have gone straight back to adding more commas... 192.76.8.64 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I believe a block, at least a page block, would be appropriate at this time. Woodroar (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll give them more warnings if they continue. Dinoz1 (chat?) 14:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Woodroar (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully the disruptive edits are over, now that he's apologized and said he understood MOS:DATES. Dinoz1 (chat?) 14:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted all edits that didn't conform with MOS:DATES. The only ones weren't undone were ReactOS and RW Ursae Minoris as the article's origins aren't clear. Callmemirela 🍁 15:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Stalking by sockpuppets of Belteshazzar

I am bringing this up here because I think this has gone beyond a "simple" case of sockpuppetry. User:Belteshazzar is a blocked user with a whole string of sockpuppet reports behind him and an open SPI case which would benefit from attention: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar. There is a LTA case at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Belteshazzar (largely written by myself) which explains his nonsense, to the extent that it is explicable. Belteshazzar's behaviour transcends sockpuppetry in the way that he uses his sockpuppets to stalk his perceived enemies on Wikipedia. He has done this repeatedly to User:Psychologist Guy and to myself who, not coincidentally, are the two people who have reported his sockpuppets the most often. For example, almost as soon as I get involved with a discussion on Talk:Drag Panic he starts editing Drag Panic, an article which none of his sockpuppets have touched before. The edit itself is insignificant but the point is that he clearly wants me to know that he is watching my edits. This is harassment, whether he intends it as such or not. He possibly thinks that this is legitimate "retaliation" because I am watching and reverting his edits pending his latest IPs getting blocked (hint! hint!) but that is not how this works. I am not sure what can be done. Are there any ranges of proxy IPs that could be blocked for a good long period that might help? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is harassment. In my case it has been happening for about a year and a half, this is not something that has only been happening a few days or weeks so it is inexcusable. The stalking was raised in February 2023 at this noticeboard [229]. An admin spoke to Belteshazzar on a proxy IP he was using back then [230] and told him to stop doing it. Before this, two other admins have spoken to Belteshazzar and told him to stop the stalking as it is harassment. One admin described the stalking as creepy in the SPI which is very true. Usually when I create a new article now or edit one, Belteshazzar makes a trivial edit directly after me. It's creepy in the sense you just want to be left alone. This user will stalking my recent editing history to harass. It's gets to the point where myself may not want to edit to the full extent I would normally be editing. Obviously anyone can edit here but it isn't right to have a banned user follow you around and make trivial edits directly after you have edited an article. I don't think it is fair to put up with this like I have for a year and a half.

Because the harassment has gone on for so long, I would like to file a request for Belteshazzar to be globally banned [231]. I have created nearly 280 articles on Wikipedia. The negative experience with Belteshazzar is pissing me off and not making editing experience on this website as enjoyable as it should be, it is also wasting other users time dealing with his nonsense. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thirded. Belteshazzar hasn't been doing anything to me, but, I had a few interactions with him some years ago and I've had his SPI and LTA and such watchlisted and I've been reading them for years now. Longer term blocks of proxy IPs and a global ban are warranted. Leijurv (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Please understand that I am extremely frustrated, due to events which you are unaware of. But I will stop doing what is being complained about here, if these are treated as legitimate edits: [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] I explained my reasons for those changes, in previous edit summaries if not in the ones linked. You don't even have to accept all of my changes; just treat them as you would treat edits by a legitimate user. The only one that should not simply be restored is at Charles Ingram, as there have been subsequent edits, but I'm pretty sure that many users have tools that make it easier to reintegrate things. I would do the work manually, but that article is semi-protected. 49.49.51.160 (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You are a serial harasser and stalker and have never apologised for your disruptive and creepy behaviour which has been going on for years [238]. I am filing a complaint to the WMF and hopefully will have your account globally banned. Per WP:EVADE we do not need to keep or restore any of your disruptive edits which you are making on proxy IPs. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Your edits on Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics and Charles Ingram that you linked to are not legitimate edits, they are disruptive. You have disrupted so many articles that they have to be protected long-term from your persistent socking. Do you realise you are ruining editing experience for legitimate IPs so they cannot edit those articles which have been locked because of you? There is no self-reflection from your part about your behaviour at all. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

So you will stop vandalising Wikipedia if we allow your chosen edits to stand? And you will continue to vandalise Wikipedia if we do not? That's blackmail. The sense of entitlement here is absurd. Obviously, I have no idea what "events which you are unaware of" refers to but I assume that you mean something off-wiki. I fully support the request for a global ban to protect Wikipedia but also for your own sake. If you have off-wiki problems in your life then nothing you do here is going to help you with that. Please get off Wikipedia and seek help from appropriate sources. DanielRigal (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

DigitalMannat

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

I don't see any use of we in the edit summaries. Also, I notified the user of this ANI posting. Mac Dreamstate, you are required to notify people if you start a discussion about them. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for forgetting to notify the user. It's been a while since I've posted at ANI, and I was rushing a bit with other tasks. Will be more attentive in future. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Not in edit summaries; "we" in edits. In their most recent edits: Fortive[239], List of water-related charities[240], R. K. Joshi[241], Life satisfaction[242] - I stopped there. Schazjmd (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Three of those four look to me like they were copy-pasted from somewhere else. --JBL (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Fortive is a copyvio from here. Water-related is a bad paraphrase of this site. Joshi is a bad paraphrase from here. Life satisfaction is a copyvio from here. — Trey Maturin™ 19:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking through other edits, we're got a sentence in The Infinite Mind that's a copy and paste from here, and the addition to Jet engine performance is a copyvio from here. The image additions, on Commons, are no better. This needs a mass revert on general principles. — Trey Maturin™ 19:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps refer this to WP:CCI? 192.76.8.64 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Starting a CCI for someone with 39 edits that are all obvious copyvio isn't a good use of editor time. Just revert and WP:RD1 them all. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 04:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All of their edits seem to be copyvios, this edit [243] is copied from http://designindia.net/thoughts/people/teachers/prof_r_k_joshi this edit [244] is copied from https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node85.html this edit [245] is copied from https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-526-028pc2v51r. 192.76.8.64 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the editor from mainspace and draftspace for copyright violations and disruptive editing. Maybe that will get them to start communicating. Spicy (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yilian Wong sending threatening email

• Yilian Wong (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Falun Gong
• Li Hongzhi

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

Yilian Wong also left this same message at the Li Hongzhi talk page and on several user talk pages. The conclusion offered by Yilian Wong is that

for example, you will suffer different degrees of retribution due to the different severity and consequences of your slander of Dafa and Mr. Li Hongzhi, such as bad fortune, or suffering from diseases of different severity, or even death

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

Looks like WP:NOTTHERE to me. Callmemirela 🍁 19:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Indef. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

And remove access to email users if possible. Callmemirela 🍁 19:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a cult + suffer existential paranormal retribution for your defiance of our totally not a cult leader is certainly an interesting mix. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What a nice individual. Certainly should be indeffed and email privileges removed. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've indeffed and removed email and talk. Canterbury Tail talk 20:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Good block by Canterbury Tail. I was about to do it myself but took too much time reading the "letter" EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do I feel that this is a troll and not a genuine falun gong practioner as they claim to be. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand journalism scholar Heather Kavan writes about how Falun Gong practitioners do this kind of stuff regularly.[246][247] I don't have any doubt we are dealing with a true believer. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah IMO a Joe Job would do things that were patently offensive instead of laughable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Why it looked like a spam bot to me? Does anyone want to make a request on m:Srg to request a global lock? -Lemonaka‎ 23:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

MiltenR once again

Please see this earlier discussion. This user is doing long standing POV pushing. Now calling Bulgars being Turkic a fringe theory apparently. see [248] Beshogur (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User is definitely being disruptive, and seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Very obvious POV issues here, I think the standard offer is most appropriate here. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, they were blocked earlier from editing article mainspace due to edit warring. This behaviour can't continue though. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Cawseases

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

---

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

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

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

Good faith ip who lacks competency

An IP address, 23.233.149.194, has been making a lot of edits but a lot of them have just been unconstructive and they seem to fall within the bounds of WP:CIR. Their edits are almost all minute and grammar related, however, they're rife with spelling mistakes and a lot seem to not have any real purpose. I assumed good faith and left a warning on their talk page but they have edited dozens of times since and there have seem to have been little to no change in their editing pattern. [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] Flalf^Talk 03:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

23.233.149.194 has already received two more warnings since yesterday for edits such as [255] Flalf^Talk 18:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Some more good faith edits that aren't constructive [256] [257] [258] [259] Flalf^Talk 02:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Major book spamming/promotional push by Herbertrogers67

The main article is Muhammad the World-Changer: An Intimate Portrait, but Herbertrogers67 (talk · contribs) has been adding links to many other articles. Additionally, a lot of other WP:SPA accounts (EditorConsult (talk · contribs); Bibliophilistine (talk · contribs); Leymoon (talk · contribs); George1954US (talk · contribs); Salaamgiver (talk · contribs)) are editing only at this article, so it looks like sockpuppet or coordinated meatpuppet activity. Requesting reversion of the dozens of plugs for the book throughout Wikipedia, and whatever sanctions are most appropriate. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Just some FYI notes to add to the above:

• I already posted an SPI earlier today about these users (here). A clerk has not had time to respond yet, though, so we'll see. Either way, the activity around this is suspicious, given the 8 single-purpose accounts creating and editing the same article in just 4 days.
• As you can see from their user talk page here (before they blanked it), Herbertrogers67 denied any connection to these other accounts and denied any relation to the author of the book they've been ref-spamming.
• At Talk:Mecca they recently claimed here that their edits were in response to "a note about having the article connect to others", which I assume means the orphan tag added to the Muhammad World-Changer article here. However, even before that orphan tag was added, they had already inserted dubious/redundant citations to this same book in no less than 15 articles: [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274].
• Many of their edits have involved additional unsourced changes or replacing sourced information with different information attributed to this new book, so even if they weren't promotional, these edits would still be problematic.

It's rather difficult to explain this behaviour without some kind of WP:COI involved. R Prazeres (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Recommendations:

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

I don't have time now to work anymore on this one.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work and attention on this already. I plan to go through their edits when I have time and/or when the SPI is hopefully concluded, if others haven't by then. If some of their edits merely added sourced information without altering other sourced content (and assuming no other problems), it would be logical to leave them. But edits that modified/removed previous sourced content in favour of claims attributed to Jebara are almost certainly not appropriate. The book may be good on its own merits, but as I mentioned elsewhere it does not appear to be an academic historian's work and is written from a certain perspective (e.g. as noted by this review and this scholar's review). For WP:RS purposes, it should be treated with caution. R Prazeres (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

All have been blocked [275]. Per the rationale for reporting here, any and all attempts to spam at dozens of articles can be subject to removal. Going forward, it might be wise to watch for new socks looking to evade the blocks to further promote the book. Thanks for the SPI report, and for the attention to this. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I would also generally keep an eye out for edits promoting the author Mohamad Jebara or his other book, The Life of the Qur’an: From Eternal Roots to Enduring Legacy. Now that I'm going through Herbertrogers67's edits, I've noticed some which are clearly and unduly promoting the author, not just the book ([276], [277], [278], [279]). Thanks again to everyone for your comments and help. R Prazeres (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: I think I've now finished reverting all their undue edits. R Prazeres (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576's repeated poor conduct on AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I find that there is consensus to sanction Jack4576 with an indefinite topic ban (WP:TBAN) from WP:AFD. I find that there is general agreement, notwithstanding not insignificant opposition, that Jack4576 edits in this area are often disruptive. Specifically, that they are disruptive for their excessive WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLUDGEON, and that this is further made worse when combined with a novel interpretation of policy. I note that a few have proposed a 'softer' sanction, but I think that'd be better suited for a future appeal (regardless, it lacked sufficient support). A few users also proposed a 'harder' sanction, one encompassing any and all deletion discussions, wherever, but I think that'd be better suited for a future complaint (regardless, it too lacked sufficient support). Thanks. El_C 06:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

Hello reader. I disagree that my keep votes are in bad faith.

I have made a few uncivil comments in the past, however I think my recent comments have overwhelmingly been civil and a fair contribution.

My criticisms of Wikipedia policies are and ought to be fair game, and are in good faith. Ditto re: my criticism of deletion decisions that I believe have been contrary to guidelines, or fail to; (1) engage in SIGCOV, (2) comply with WP:Before, or (3) are lacking in their consideration of social context or Wikipedia's wider social mission. Kind regards Jack4576 (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

further, 'collectively assessing' references for assessing whether or not SIGCOV has been met is not 'misinterpreting policy'

when deciding on whether SIGCOV has been met, all sources need to be considered together Jack4576 (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

My high keep !vote percentage reflects the fact that I usually abstain from participating in AfD discussions where it seems to me that a delete vote would be inevitable. Because of that, the above point regarding my 68% keep vote rate is misleading Jack4576 (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no issue with disagreeing with Wikipedia's policies. I think most editors disagree with some things. The issue is is that you take those disagreements with you to AfD, often meaning your !votes conflict with the actual policy. WP:SIGCOV does not have "collective assessments", a source is SIGCOV-compliant or not, and articles need two of those. I made the point regarding the high keep percentage because most editors like to !vote both keep and delete, rather than only !vote for one side. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

SIGCOV as expressed in WP:GNG is in relation to subjects, not particular sources. If multiple references and sources exist, it is possible for them to be collectively assessed so as to amount to a subject meeting SIGCOV requirements.

My votes do not conflict with policy, your votes conflict with policy. Jack4576 (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not possible for "collective assessments" to be made. I am unsure how many editors need to spell that out to you, but it is plain wrong, and you've now shown your issue with understanding core Wikipedia policy, and your civility issues. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It is your assessment of the policy that is plainly wrong. Jack4576 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

And while I'm here, I'd like to remind the community of Jack's oppose on Ingenuity's RfA. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Relevance ? ? ?

Jack4576 (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's relevant because it's another thing you did, that I forgot to mention in the report. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance of a good faith and civil RfA oppose vote to this discussion Jack4576 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the focus of the discussion is “battleground behavior concerning deletion”, and your RfA vote is a clear example of that (?). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that a good faith oppose vote on an RfA, (which I note was withdrawn after feedback), amounts to battleground behaviour Jack4576 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support AfD topic ban. I see numerous incorrect applications of policy by Jack4576 in deletion discussions, and have yet to see anything that shows they understand Wikipedia policy surrounding notability. Their comments above show they don't even understand significant coverage. Their hostility towards good-faith feedback on their comments shows they are not willing to learn and adjust their behavior accordingly. While their !votes may be good-faith, they display a serious lack of competence that is deserving of a topic ban from deletion discussions. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  From the SIGCOV policy: "... does not need to be the main topic of the source material ..."

  If I have multiple sources, none of which involve the subject as the main topic; and read them collectively, it is possible to come to a view that the subject has received significant coverage from source material.

  If you are asserting a contrary interpretation of the SIGCOV policy, then yes, you are correct, I do not understand it. Jack4576 (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Trivial mentions of a subject in multiple sources does not amount to significant coverage. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  and what about when the mentions are more than 'trivial' or 'passing' ? Jack4576 (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'll be clear for the record; I support an AfD topic ban for Jack. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, as you've already noted in the ANI. Jack4576 (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Without commenting of the editor in questions' understanding of SIGCOV (which does, I will mention, appear to be erroneous and bizarre), I just want to note that the AfD keep percentage argument used at the beginning of your comment is particularly weak. I was expecting before I got to the number that it was going to be something like 90%. But 68%? My own is 78%. It would be a stronger argument to consider AfD outcomes matching or not the voting record for the editor, which is only 66% for Jack. But since only about half of the AfDs they've been involved in have even closed yet, it's a bit early to use that metric either. Anyways, your argument on their misunderstanding of notability and what significant coverage is in reliable sources is much better to focus on, along with their incivility in said discussions. The percentages part, not so much. Silverseren^C 06:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you. I'll strike it out. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why was it included in the first place? Jack4576 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  It was to demonstrate how much keep !voting to do, however it turns out that, at least with number of !votes, it's not that uncommon. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why did you include it without first determining whether it was actually uncommonly high?

  I suggest that the answer is motivated reasoning Jack4576 (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  This doesn't excuse your behaviours, and I'm not going to check AfD stats of individual editors. It came from the percentage of articles deleted after being nominated at AfD, which is around 75%. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I suggest you included it because you have engaged in motivated reasoning to find reasons in support of your post here. Jack4576 (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The AfD discussions linked above are selective at best.

I'd like to point out some of my positive contributions to AfD, including:

• The Chicago CRED AfD
• The Jeff Guess AfD
• The Humphrey's Restaurant & Tavern AfD
• The unfortunate Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence AfD
• The McKinsey quarterly AfD
• The Sunny Isles Beach AfD
• The KaSelly AfD
• The Nikko Smith AfD

Jack4576 (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned KaSelly in my original report. Some were fine, but I would still argue that the other those !votes are bad, as some were repudiated by other editors with policy, and others were junk AfD nominations. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and the basis of your inclusion was baffling. I was not aware "shows their opinion on the deletion of articles" is a banning reason for AfD discussions Jack4576 (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason we're here is because you continually change the meaning of notability guidelines or make up your own to WP:RGW, and you have repeatedly been told to not do so. I didn't mention it in the original report, but competence is required at Wikipedia and you need to listen. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

My interpretation of SIGCOV, as being able to be met through a collective assessment of all sources to an article; is entirely in compliance with GNG.

If you disagree with that interpretation; or would like to clarify this issue by opening an RfC for consensus, that would be more appropriate. As yet, you have yet to demonstrate or even point to anything to support your position that SIGCOV can only be met if at least one of the sources individually and in isolation amounts to significant coverage.

Raising these issues here is unproductive, and isn't an effective way to resolve the dispute. Someone having a good-faith disagreement with you on how a guideline ought be interpreted is not a sign of incompetence; however your reflexive accusations that this is the case, is itself a problem (added after strikethrough) certainly a sign of your own arrogance. Jack4576 (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Jack, please strike that last sentence. ANI is a very bad place to use such a direct personal attack. — Trey Maturin™ 07:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That was uncivil and I apologise.

I am frustrated by JML1148 questioning my competence while refusing to consider that his own interpretation of the SIGCOV policy (as articulated above) is mistaken. Jack4576 (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that Jack does often !vote keep despite admitting that the subject does not meet SIGCOV or the SNG. One recent example being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafuko Stanley. Whilst this could be considered disruptive, the closing admin can ignore or give these sorts of comments less weight. I'm not sure if we've reached the stage where we need to topic ban yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just flagging I've just struck out a moment ago that argument I made on 11 May

  I've stopped arguing that GNG can be met without SIGCOV, in response to feedback Jack4576 (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Spiderone: It's my opinion that it is. The issue is that this editor has been given many chances and has had editors explain things to them many times over, as well as the civility issues as we have seen in this discussion. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your understanding of the SIGCOV rule is incorrect. Sources must be evaluated collectively.

  I am correct to ignore your repeated explanations to the contrary.

  If you want to obtain consensus on your interpretive view, raise it in an RfC. I will gladly follow consensus.

  Your repeated questioning of my competence, whilst refusing to engage appropriately, is itself uncivil. Pot calling the kettle black, etcetera Jack4576 (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Very ......... for an editor to call another's arguments "very stupid", shortly prior to running off to make an ANI complaining of incivility Jack4576 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly see your point, JML1148. If any topic ban is to be enforced, I would prefer it to be only a very short-term measure. Jack does need to stop with the uncivil comments, there's no argument about that but, again, we're not looking at a WP:NOTHERE editor here, just someone who perhaps needs clear guidance and boundaries. Jack's willingness to take on others' comments and strike or change their !votes is also a positive thing imho. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demetris Spyridakis, for example. There are plenty of editors on AfD who refuse to back down even when presented with clear evidence but at least Jack is not one of them. Making mistakes at AfD is normal especially when engaging with them with little prior experience. I've read some of my old nominations and !votes and surprised I managed to escape a topic ban myself given how dreadful some of my arguments were. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to take on-board feedback that future participation in AfD discussions must be more civil Jack4576 (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Including yourself? LibStar (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes ...... I was speaking for myself ...... Jack4576 (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. In my opinion, Jack has made spurious keep !votes, and although it is good to see that they are changing their !votes once given detailed replies, however this isn't happening all of the time. Just look at the amount of text on Ryan Murphy, and they've been active on AfD for two weeks. They've had plenty of time to learn, and plenty of encouragement to read policy and use it correctly. But they continue to WP:RGW, be uncivil in deletion discussions and on talk pages, and now they're harassing LibStar on their talk page. I would agree with you if they're relatively new to the process, but it's my opinion, in good faith, that the "guidance and boundaries" that you mentioned in your comment have well and truly been given, and have been ignored. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 11:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not harass Libstar on their talk page. They misrepresented the discussion in breach of the guidelines; and I attempted to link to a diff. This is not harassment.

I don't understand your point re: the Ryan Murphy AfD. My discussion on that page adheres strictly to SIGCOV guidelines. Jack4576 (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Like several other editors, I find the percentage slur spurious at best ... my own AfD percentage runs little better than 10% Keep, and speaking as a deletionist, there is nothing whatsoever inherently sinister about being an inclusionist. The only times when it's reasonable to question percentages is how often the editor gets it right. My own "match" percentage (votes-to-eventual outcome) is just short of 90%. By contrast, Jack4576's is 66%. I've seen worse, but obviously he could better align himself with prevalent notions in deletion discussions. Ravenswing 08:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I take issue with the description of it being "how often the editor gets it right" as opposed to "how often the editor gets it aligned with consensus".

  However I agree with you to the extent that I do agree it is at least a somewhat valuable metric for assessing good faith in discussions Jack4576 (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I do agree with your comment, and I believe that the percentage argument was a poor one to make. I've struck it out for that reason. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 11:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Jack4576 has soaked up a lot of the community's time in the last 3 weeks in AfDs, RfCs and even a RfA. As recently as today he was disparaging to a non Australian editor in an Australian AfD. The RfA in question is also concerning, Jack at the time was the sole oppose vote to 190 or so support votes. He argued extensively for his oppose vote Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ingenuity, then retracted it wasting a lot of community's time. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  You also soak up a lot of the community's time LibStar with your high amount of activity. My activity in and of itself ought not be a problem.

  Editors like yourself, that have a demonstrable history of nominating articles under AfD without performing WP:BEFORE are a larger and more wasteful soak of the community's time in my view

  I'd like to point out, a lot of my involvement is responding to premature nominations from yourself. This occurred in relation to these three nominations: (1), (2), (3); but there are numerous more examples available. I have rarely (if ever?) seen you back down in the face of opposing arguments, even when consensus is not on your side and novel arguments have been presented. So forgive me for reacting with some incredulity here to your assertion that I 'soak up a lot of the community's time'.

  My good faith participation in an RfA is entirely irrelevant to this discussion; which is about my AfD participation.

  Please explain to me why good faith participation in other areas of this website such as RfA or RfC give rise to a cause for concern Jack4576 (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is an ANI about you not me. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  When you have raised my high amount activity on this website as a problem, it is appropriate to raise as context that a large amount of that activity has arisen in response to your demonstrated failure at adhering to AfD guidelines

  Oh and WP:BOOMERANG Jack4576 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Again. This is an ANI about you not me. LibStar (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BOOMERANG, we could do this all day. Jack4576 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you're not happy about my conduct. Set up an ANI for me. But it would be considered WP:BOOMERANG. Secondly, stop posting on my talk page. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is entirely appropriate for me to respond to your accusations that I have been overly active; to provide context that the reason for that activity has been in large part a response to your disruptive editing. Jack4576 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  If I have been disruptive bring it up in ANI. Now you are harassing me on my talk page despite requests for you to stop posting. LibStar (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Pfft, I did not 'harass you on your talk page'

  You altered our conversation misrepresenting it, in clear breach of the guidelines.

  When I attempted to add a 'diff', you removed it again, whilst retaining the prior conversation as a misrepresentation.

  You have been disruptive and this is an appropriate place to call it out given your baseless allegations above. Jack4576 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I requested several times for you to stop posting on my page, yet you continued. Removing your posts on my own talk page is hardly disruptive. Your argumentative nature here is just further evidence of your WP:BATTLEGROUND nature on WP. LibStar (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  You did not "remove my posts" you edited the conversation and misrepresented the conversation.

  It was appropriate to remedy that issue, given it was a clear guideline breach and misrepresented my discussion with you.

  On what planet does this amount to harassment? Get real. Jack4576 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your response is just typical of WP:BATTLEGROUND, you're doing a disservice to yourself here when your behaviour is being examined. I suggest you cease responding on this issue. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you're going to misrepresent our conversation in a clear guideline breach, and then further misrepresent my edits as harassment; that is pretty ridiculous and I'm going to call it out. Jack4576 (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Harassment includes repeatedly posting on someone's talk page when specifically asked to stop. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I see no guideline breach in LibStar's edit. Per the guidelines about user and user talk pages: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. Moreover, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior. You have posted once after being asked not to, which is easily taken as confrontational behavior. XOR'easter (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  He did not merely remove comments, he removed my response while retaining his responses; misrepresenting the conversation.

  Perhaps posting the thank you was confrontational, but I did not see his ask for me not to do that prior. I apologise if that edit was confrontational Libstar it was not my intent. Jack4576 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  LibStar removed your response after the "conversation" had already come here to ANI. It's not misrepresentation to decide that the thread on one's own page should come to a stop. XOR'easter (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  He replied to my comment, and then deleted my reply to his reply

  That's an alteration to the substance of the thread. If he wanted the thread completely removed from his page, he was entitled to do that. Altering the substance of a discussion is a talk page guideline breach. He shouldn't misrepresent the discussion that took place.Jack4576 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Inserting a "not" into the middle of your words would be an "alteration to the substance of the thread". Cutting the thread off is within the bounds of acceptable behavior. XOR'easter (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  If that is the case, then I apologise, as it was not my intent to harass Libstar, I thought I was being misrepresented; and I apologise for the harm caused. Jack4576 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  My reason for believing his edits were an alteration to the substance is the talk page guideline reading: "The record should accurately show significant exchanges that have taken place" WP:TPNO

  Libstar's request that I no longer edit his page was after the exchange that he was partially deleting had been completed; and so I was concerned about being misrepresented. In the interests of putting this to bed; again, I apologise. Jack4576 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  You're trying to tell someone to be less active on Wikipedia? That is the most ridiculous statement I've heard here, and that's saying something. You are also going on about LibStar not conducting WP:BEFORE searches, however they definitely do, and it's not that hard for you to do one yourself, if you feel like they have missed something. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 11:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  You yourself have called out my level of activity as a reason for a topic ban. I agree that its a ridiculous reason Jack4576 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have never made those claims. What I have stated is that you are bludgeoning pages, a practice which LibStar is not doing. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 02:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support AfD topic ban. Per their insistence that everyone else is wrong about sigcov but not them (as seen in the above afds, rfa etc.). Further (from the above) their insistence that interviews and institutions that a subject works for are not WP:PRIMARY are incorrect. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  "their insistence that interviews and institutions that a subject works for are not WP:PRIMARY" what are you talking about ? Jack4576 (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support AfD topic ban: I took some time going over the evidence and thinking about this, and this sounds where we are. First off, I'm troubled by some of Jack4576's spurious rationales at AfD. I've participated in many hundreds of AfDs, and one key principle that binds inclusionists and deletionists alike is that the basis for an article's notability is the notability guidelines and standards in place, not upon wishful thinking or how-the-rules-would-read-if-I-was-the-one-crafting-them. Jack4576 is too ready to decide that the rules mean what he wants them to mean, never mind when he thinks that "Wikipedia's mission" or social justice considerations have any direct application to the GNG, SIGCOV and other notability guidelines. Beyond that, as we've seen in this topic, he is far too ready to get combative; for instance, his response to LibStar above. This is an encyclopedia, and the best defense is NOT to launch attacks on your perceived foes. Ravenswing 11:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can you point to some AfD rationalisations that have been problematic of late ? Jack4576 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  LibStar gives it as much as he takes it; and besides, his accusations above are baseless, and I have defended myself in a civil manner.

  It is a misrepresentation from him to describe my activities as wasting the community's time, when much of the activity is due to his defective AfD nominations. (e.g. (1), (2), (3); plus plenty others) Jack4576 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support AfD topic ban for reasons Ravenswing has pointed out and Jack's willingness to turn WP into a WP:BATTLEGROUND at every opportunity when someone disagrees with him even in this ANI. Most concerning to me was Jack's defiant [280]. LibStar (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  You're involved in the disputed behaviour. Jack4576 (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  It does not disqualify me from making comments. LibStar (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  It does disqualify your vote from being accorded weight when community consensus is determined Jack4576 (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  And hoping you will accept that community consensus. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Of course I will. Jack4576 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yet another misinterpretation of policy...LibStar's opinion isn't discounted simply because they've participated in some of the same discussions you've participated in. Valereee (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree they're one of the core participants in this dispute, along with yourself. Jack4576 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Which doesn't matter. Editors who've interacted with you are of course going to be more likely to know what the problem is, and of course some of them will weigh in. We do not consider only opinions from editors who have never interacted with you, we do not discount opinions from those who have. You are misunderstanding policy w/re WP:INVOLVED. Involved is about admin action. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  The ban policy (which is separate) requires that community consensus for a ban; needs to be reached by community members not involved in the conduct leading to the ban in question Jack4576 (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Add WP:CBAN to the list of policies Jack4576 thinks they understand but completely misinterprets in a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLUDGEONING approach. Toddst1 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Sock? In reading over this, the obsession with deletion discussions and Aussie-related topics sent the bells ringing. Subtropical-man's topic ban, Oct 2022. Zaathras (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is my only account and it has been consistently active on Australian law related topics since 2020 Jack4576 (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Actually I do have one other account that I occasionally use to edit the pages of parliamentarians; within compliance of WP's guidelines. But it is not that account, and I have never used it to Sock. Jack4576 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Could you please disclose that account on your userpage per WP:SOCKLEGIT? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 02:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  No. Per the WP:SOCKLEGIT clause 'Privacy' Jack4576 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• No topic ban and this borders (or steps over) the ridiculous. Several well-versed and well-intentioned AfD editors have been banned from AfD in the past year because they (gasp, fainting salts please) argued to save pages. My own AfD contributions have been almost all 'Keep' because I only vote on pages I would like to see kept and I don't vote if the tally is already strongly in favor of deleting. Should I also expect a topic ban proposal because I have a voting pattern both obnoxious and contrary to the deletion crew? This discussion, which has devolved into a push for a topic ban for Jack4576, should be closed down as quickly as if it were an Old West-style lynching. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. Jack4576 (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  The topic ban is not because of his "voting pattern both obnoxious and contrary to the deletion crew" its because of his insistence that everyone else is wrong about SIGCOV not him. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Then hopefully he'll learn from this discussion (Wikipedians all have learning curves, this should be accepted as a fact of editing) but a topic ban from AfD? Maybe a one-week topic ban to "get the message", but way too many 'Keep' editors have been attacked and banned in the past year and in previous years, not a good look for what supposedly is a neutral and fair encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support AfD topic ban - Despite many warnings and attempts to educate, Jack continues to bludgeon AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Dziedzic where he comments no less than 15 times, often inventing or misrepresenting notability criteria and even suggesting "you could vote IAR" to another editor who couldn't find a policy-based reason to !vote Keep. Their occasional use of odd flowery prose "Ah, my esteemed fellow, your remarks sing to me like a lark at dawn - delightful, if somewhat dissonant. I confess I have been a thorn in the side of complacency, a bee in the bonnet of unexamined consensus, yet, is not such fervor the lifeblood of our endeavor? I am accused of inventing criteria for AfDs. Surely, you jest! I do not invent, dear colleague; I merely illuminate the unseen, undusting the corners of our understanding, for are we not all seekers of truth in this grand academic arena?" is strange and not in keeping with being here to build an encyclopedia. We see the same behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Murphy (Australian politician) and numerous other AfDs. The solution isn't for closers to simply disregard these disruptive comments; typically closers will accept any arguments that go unchallenged, which means that other editors must spend time repeatedly explaining why Jack is wrong. Since all attempts to help have failed, a topic ban is our last remaining option. –dlthewave ☎ 14:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I do not see "you could vote IAR" as a disruptive response

  To my mind, it is in full compliance. It is a concession that an article is contrary to policy, yet a request that it ought be nonetheless retained

  Providing singular replied in response, in the course of an ordinary AfD discussion, in good faith, is not bludegeoning (for goodness sake...)

  Neither is it problematic or unencyclopedic to express one's views in "flowery language". Good grief sir Jack4576 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  You would be best served to stop replying to every comment in this thread. It’s borderline WP:BLUDGEONING and will end up hurting your case. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:A573:E15D:68D7:52A3 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have a right to respond to the reasons provided in arguments advocating for my topic ban.

  As you acknowledge, it is borderline at most; and I do not think I have crossed the line into bludgeoning.

  In any event, the WP:BLUD essay is not policy. Jack4576 (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was trying to be gentle with my wording to avoid a hostile response. I was not successful. It’s obvious that you’re viewing this entire situation with a battleground mentality. If this is the hill upon which you want to end your time here, nobody is going to be able to stop you. Obviously, I won’t try to help you again. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:A573:E15D:68D7:52A3 (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm surprised that you consider my reply above to be a 'hostile response' Jack4576 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is not policy, however, it is an explanatory essay regarding the disruptive editing policy, and it is very possible to be sanctioned on the grounds of bludgeoning the process. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 22:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban I see three concerns here. First, the out-of-community consensus !votes at AFD. Second, the bludgeoning and sheer volume of comments on many of those discussions. Third, the repeated use of unrelated discussions to grandstand about his deletion opinions. The only way to address this is for Jack to take a break from deletion-related discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

and the duration ? Jack4576 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Frankly I'm not sure an AfD topic ban is going to put this editor on the right path. The overarching issue is that they're sure they understand policies they don't understand, and they push back whenever anyone disagrees with them to the point of really kind of over-the-top bludgeoning, which is happening right here. It looks like 50+ edits have been made in this discussion by Jack4576, which is kind of astounding. They just opened yet another RfC because discussion at Talk:Chicago CRED wasn't going their way. They appear to be trying to tally the comments here in a weird pointy way, as if they've decided a closer needs to discount the opinions of multiple other editors...I kind of feel like the issues at AfD are just what ended up here first. Valereee (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Users involved in a dispute aren't supposed to be involved with banning decisions.

  To clarify which users are involved in the dispute is not POINTY. (lmao?) Jack4576 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Administrators aren't supposed to take administrative action with regard to a content dispute they're involved in. That doesn't mean anyone you've ever had a content dispute with can't weigh in here or that their opinion is discounted. Valereee (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I do think it is important that people involved in the particular dispute are able to be identified

  The closing admin can weigh appropriately Jack4576 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  How in the world are you counting me as being "involved in the particular dispute"? I've barely interacted with you at AfD. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  You and I have had a recent lengthy and personal dispute at Chicago CRED's talkpage, that overlaps with the dispute as articulated by JML1148 here Jack4576 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that doesn't make me involved w/re AfD. It means I wouldn't be able to p-block you from editing Chicago CRED, I'd have to bring it here for someone else to take action. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Their conduct has been atrocious at AFD. Non-stop IDHT about the necessity of SIGCOV or non-policy based !votes. I know it takes time to learn Wikipedia's ways, and I'm sympathetic to that...but not when editors aren't making an effort. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't made an argument that SIGCOV is unnecessary since the 11th of May.

  I have learned on that issue and been responsive to community feedback. Jack4576 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm glad to hear that you got there eventually, but I never would have guessed that in the AFD I interacted with you in here, where you badgered editors at length over it and never conceded anything. And that AFD ended unanimously against you. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed that was the last AfD at which I ever argued that. After reflection of that outcome I changed my view on that issue, and since have voted delete consistently across articles where SIGCOV has not been established

  (excepting an occasional keep on the basis of 'IAR', which is within policy and can be assessed as appropriate by closers) Jack4576 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose (edit conflict) all voices should be heard. And the OP ought to keep track of their own AfD double ivotes. We don't tban editors just because we disagree with them, AfD closers are intelligent enough to dismiss ivotes that are not relevant. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Jack4576 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Dlthewave please do not remove my comments from the discussion.

  Comment: on my count (and keep in mind I am the target, and so am biased) so far the tally is:

  Community members opposed to a topic ban: Randy Kryn, Lightburst

  Community members making neutral comments: Silverseren, Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} (some positive, some negative as to the proposal)

  Community members in favour of a topic ban: FormalDude, Lavalizard101, Walt Yoder, LibStar, JML1148, Ravenswing, dlthewave, Timothy, Valereee, Sergecross73, User:Toddst1

  I note that LibStar, JML1148, Ravenswing, dlthewave, Valereee, Timothy, User:Toddst1 are all editors that I have been involved in disputes with in RfD (or elsewhere) recently that overlap with the issues complained of here by JML1148. Jack4576 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  And I note that this is the kind of meretricious, combative bullshit that just keeps digging you a deeper hole. While I haven't checked for the other editors, perhaps you would be so good as to point out the RfD "dispute" you claim to have with me. Other than a one-off in 2020, every AfD discussion in which you've taken part has been in the last two weeks. I have participated in only two AfD discussions in that timeframe. We have participated in only one AfD together. We responded to neither one's comment, and we both advocated deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patty Mayo You want to walk this comment back? Ravenswing 16:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  My apologies I got your account mentally confused with that of User:kashmīrī

  Indeed? What about Timothy, with whom you had no direct interactions save that you've both participated in the same AfDs? In the hour I just spent going over your AfD record, I could find no interactions with Valereee or Toddst1 either. What "disputes" do you claim to have with them outside this ANI? Ravenswing 02:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved administrator who has been watching Jack, I think Jack is capable of changing behavior for the positive. Following discussion with me, he hasn't launched any more ill advised RfCs based on experiences he had at an AfD. feel like Jack's conduct at AfDs has also improved following feedback from editors. What hasn't improved is Jack's single-mindedness about deletion. Everything seems to be viewed through a deletion lens whether it's an RfA or an amendment to ARBPOL. Even that RfA shows an ability to reflect - eventually Jack struck that oppose. The other concerning piece, for me, is the repeated Bludgeoning which is also on display in this thread. Both the single mindedness about deletion and the bludgeoning were the types of behaviors on display at last year's ArbCom case and I would hope through some combination of improved behavior by Jack and community action we can fix this without reaching ArbCom again. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thoughtful remarks as always @Barkeep49:. FWIW, as someone who has been skewered in this forum I sympathize with the feeling that a response to ivotes and comments is needed. But after my experiences in this forum I would advise Jack4576 to stop posting anything at all here, and take a {{wikibreak}} to reflect. Call it a self suspension. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

OK I will refrain from further comment. Jack4576 (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to characterise a person defending themselves alone, against multiple accusers, as a bludgeoning of discussion.

Its inevitable that the volume of my comments in this thread would be high, given there are a large number of distinct accusations being levelled; and I am trying to provide a response those distinct allegations civilly, and appropriately. Jack4576 (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

1. you could use periodic comments that respond to multiple editors rather than replying to every single person, sometimes multiple times and 2. it is every single person. You're not just replying to people with concerns, you're also replying to people who think there isn't a problem. 2 is what makes it a clear case of bludgeoning. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Noted, will not happen again. Jack4576 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You should absolutely defend yourself. But a lot of these responses aren't really doing that. Many aren't really constructive or accomplishing anything. I'll stop responding myself now, as to not be the cause of any more of it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban. Other AfD participants as well as the closing admin will factor in for themselves the validity (or lack thereof) of Jack’s comments. Jack, meanwhile, needs to reflect on both the concerns raised about civility and positive comments made here about his other contributions.—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I spot-checked several recent AfDs Jack participated in. I agreed with him about half the time; in those cases, I also !voted against the nomination. I didn't think he was transgressive. Jack can be persistent, just like some of his critics here. If he repeats himself, just tune him out. Use his good stuff and leave the rest. It's just ones and zeros. There's not even ink getting wasted. If we purge people around here based on social skills and popularity, who will be left among us to edit Wikipedia? It's not like many of us were ever the cool kids in school. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support AfD tban for reasons stated above. I actually think this is a troll account because of mocking comments like these [281], [282], [283], [284] (there are more).  // Timothy :: talk  16:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Rapid fire AFD spam, 4 AfD votes in 5mins in between two ANI comments:
  • 06:53, 20 May 2023 - Post at ANI, [285]

  • 06:55, 20 May 2023 - two mins later an AfD vote: [286]
  • 06:56, 20 May 2023 - Another rapid fire AfD vote: [287]
  • 06:58, 20 May 2023 - Another rapid fire AfD vote: [288]
  • 07:00, 20 May 2023 - Another rapid fire AfD vote: [289]

  • 07:02, 20 May 2023 - Back to post at ANI: [290]  // Timothy :: talk  16:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

    All of those AfD's were so simple that they required less than 2 minutes assessment each

    [271] - Clear delete based on Dr vulpes' BEFORE

    [272]- SIGCOV already included in article

    [273] - SIGCOV already included in article

    [274] - SIGCOV obvious.

    All reasoning was provided for each !vote, this was not spam. Jack4576 (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

    Your understanding of SIGCOV is incorrect. Here you told me to look through a certain article that contains "SIGCOV", and after looking through it, I found that the name of the subject (Ryan Murphy) is only mentioned once. You also seem to think that the existence of many non-SIGCOV sources somehow amounts to SIGCOV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Another rapid fire AfD series, starts at ANI [291], then:
  • Followed by 7 rapid fire AfD votes: [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298]
  • Returns to ANI [299]

  These two examples are from today, while this ANI was in progress.  // Timothy :: talk  16:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Simple votes on the facts Jack4576 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Five of the seven include complaints about LibStar. Indeed, there's more complaining about LibStar than there is evaluation of the articles. Surely you can recognize how that might be seen as combative. XOR'easter (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Each was made alongside an evaluation. I do not know what you mean by "more"

  Its appropriate to call out disruptive editing; the above discussions show policy was clearly not being followed by the AfD nominator. Libstar has requested that I no longer post on his talk page, so the AfD discussion is the appropriate place. Jack4576 (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  By "more", I meant what I said. The evaluations were perfunctory; the complaints extensive. AfD is for debating whether or not articles should be deleted, not spreading complaints about user conduct across page after page after page. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support AFD topic ban - their behaviour is disruptive and they refuse to listen to concerns, instead badgering those who comment. GiantSnowman 16:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support AFD topic ban and a broader WP-space or RfC-initiation ban as I see this editor refuses to accept consensus in general. See the nonsense going on at Talk:Chicago CRED where the editor has opened 2 trivial RFCs in 8 days when consensus wasn't going their way. I see this editor exhibiting numerous signs of WP:TE, specifically WP:REHASH, ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors, and in general having WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. I would also recommend a strong warning against continued bludgeoning of any future discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Jack4576, please stop bludgeoning this discussion. By my count, you have made 84 edits here over the past 12 hours and such a display of disruptive editing right on this board is not likely to help your cause. Abecedare (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have refrained from replying since this was raised by Barkeep49, save as to defend myself from Timothy’s accusation of AfD spam. It is fair for me to counter and point out that those votes were relatively simple. I am not replying to every comment. Jack4576 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  By my count you have made 11 posts to this section in less then 90 minutes after Barkeep's comment about bludgeoning. (This is not an invitation to provide further justification of those posts). Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Those posts were clearly not a form of bludgeoning. You can’t claim bludgeoning by reference only to the edit count. Jack4576 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support AfD topic ban and potentially a broader WP-space or RfC-initiation ban - the comments at ARBPOL and RfA suggest that Jack sees all matters of project governance through the lens of "deletionists vs. inclusionists" and has taken a battleground attitude to the situation. They've further overused RfC processes not only at Chicago CRED but also at WP:Notability (link). This is combined with a constant pattern of demeaning comments towards their discursive opponents. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  To digress a little, I would also note that the "deletionists vs. inclusionists" analysis of Wikipedia dynamics is shallow, does not speak to editors' actual motivations, and that overly-lenient inclusion policies can actually be a disservice to marginalized topics, contrary to Jack's continuous comments positioning themselves as the defender of the downtrodden. We don't do the subaltern a favor by having solid content policies for anglocentric topics and turning marginalized topics into EverybodyWiki. But this is all food for thought, rather than reasoning for a ban; the ban is warranted due to the breaches of civility and abuses of process, not due to the positions adopted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  The enforcement bias problem is caused by the pattern of behaviour inherent to those responsible for executing the policy, rather than the not the text of the policy as written. Local, non-Anglo, and global south content faces systemic barriers to reach the 'significant' threshold of SIGCOV, due to the subjective biases of those responsible for AfD nominations. Jack4576 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Jack, if you’re worried about Anglo biases, look for the same articles on other languages’ Wikipedias. If they don’t have an article, that’ll tell you something. If they do have an article, they should have references you can look at with something like Google Translate. Also, note that our cross-wiki links are not comprehensive; if you don’t see a x-wiki link, go directly to the appropriate Wikipedia and search there. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Jack, I've written on this at length, and I'd dare say that based on your arguments so far your engagement with the topic has been rather superficial. Personalizing this as the individual failing of specific editors, rather than a complex problem produced by the interaction of our epistemology with the broader state of scholarship globally, is a recipe for getting people to dig their heels in and ignore you, and ignoring the potential dangers of having unverifiable content about non-anglosphere topics makes you seem insincere about addressing the problem of systemic bias rather than using it as a cudgel to advance your preconceptions about article creation and deletion. Further personalizing the matter in any context other than an ANI thread specifically evincing a pattern of conscious racist behavior begins to cross the line into the realm of unjustifiable personal attacks that are liable to get you blocked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on deletion broadly I did not want to find myself in this camp, as I had a positive introspective interaction with Jack at WP:NSUBPOL. However, one thing I think a lot of people are overlooking is how disparaging some of Jack's comments are. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Murphy (Australian politician), Jack states The fact that non-Australians feel its appropriate to weigh in and dismantle articles that document Australian politics in a NPOV manner is a disgrace. This reads like an attempt at gatekeeping; Jack, I know you said it wasn't but it really seems that way. However, the big kicker for me is his comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (May 2023) (The deletionists have wrought enough destruction over this site already). This is such a childish battleground mentality and is emblematic of a user incapable of working collaboratively with others. Curbon7 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7: I know you as a thoughtful and careful editor so I am responding to your ivote. I agree that the blatent condescension is problematic. My question is, can we admonish them? - because it feels excessive to go all the way to Tban without trying other measures. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

[Inserting my 2¢ here] Jack has shown room for growth, for instance when I asked them to strike a sentence 12 hours or so ago and they did (with an unasked-for but appropriate apology). They've been asked to stop bludgeoning this discussion, and I'd hope to see evidence that they can restrain themselves in the next few hours. If they manage that, then a plain-language warning/admonishment seems likely to work. They won't agree with it, but we don't ask people to change their minds, just how they edit.

But if this binfire of a thread continues, or has to be restarted in the next few weeks... well, then a t-ban it is, I'd reckon. — Trey Maturin™ 18:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be open to an admonishment as a final warning, but it has to come with an assurance from Jack himself that he'll be on his best-behavior going forth. I think Jack is here with good intentions, and to reiterate one of my previous points it is obviously ok to consider yourself to be a staunch "inclusionist" or staunch "deletionist" (though again I do find such labeling reductive); however, Jack cannot be insulting people, either by throwing around the term "deletionist" disparagingly or by implying they do not have the prerequisite knowledge to comment on a topic. Curbon7 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that they've been warned many times, and most recently were given a final warning here on their talk page, to which they replied: Consider your 'final warning' ignored. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that was why I brought it here so quickly. I was going to leave it a few days and see if they calmed down after leaving that, but instead they made a snarky comment. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Constantly ranting about "deletionists" shows that the user has a battleground attitude, per the recent ArbCom case on the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - Users should be allowed to vote how they want in various AfD discussions, whether they vote yes or no. Users should not feel like they have to vote various ways to please other users or to meet percent quotas. I don't have an issue with asking the user not to bludgeon people though. The meaning and enforcement of various policies is always interpreted in different ways here. I also don't think most people here really understand how bizarre it is to people outside of the wikipedia bubble that an encyclopedia exists that often rejects reasonable information about various subjects. KatoKungLee (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBan Reading through the linked diffs, I see an editor wasting a lot of other editors time, and being generally unkind to everyone else while doing so. Very Average Editor (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on deletion broadly – Jack4576 has shown that he is incapable of collaborating with others through various Wikipedia venues. The excessive bludgeoning and his inability to get the point (presented in the various diffs above) and his dismissing a final warning with Consider your 'final warning' ignored do not lead me to believe his behavior will change. When told a certain guideline does not match his interpretation, for instance, Jack attempts to change that guideline; this is disruptive when done excessively. At AfDs, they've repeatedly misrepresented SIGCOV and GNG (for example, here he asked me to look through an article that he claimed contained "SIGCOV", which turned out not to be true.) I am not convinced by those opposing a topic ban above. The topic ban is a preventive measure designed to reduce the likelihood that disruptive editing will take place. I see no indication that Jack is going to edit at AfDs less disruptively, especially when considering his response to the final warning, which came weeks after other previous warnings on his talk page. This is not an attempt to force an editor to "feel like they have to vote various ways to please other users or to meet percent quotas." Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. This user's participation at AfD has been an enormous timesink and given his continued assertion that everyone else is wrong about what counts toward GNG, I do not see this being remedied anytime soon. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also support any further bans, due to his repeated abuse of other WP-space mechanisms. JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment regarding BLP problems: In working on an AfD just now I came across an example of problems Jack is causing at AfD.
• The AfD is here [300]
• Jack's comment is here [301], specifically they state: ...as well as an telegraph.co.uk article regarding her having been identified as personally riding a rollercoaster alongside the DPRK's Supreme Leader.

This is a BLP and this incident at the theme park was a serious diplomatic scandal. There statement at AfD is completely false: The subject of the article was not the person photographed as the source clearly states.[302] Jack clearly didn't read the source before their keep spam and in the process attributed a diplomatic scandal to an innocent person.

This goes to their refusal to accept policy (BLP and V) and notability guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  20:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from AfD. I see the issue here as bludgeoning and CIR re: SIGCOV and GNG. I take to heart the idea above from some users that we should avoid penalizing editors just for preferring "yes" votes. But that isn't the issue here. The issue here is the misrepresentation of sources, and the repeated bludgeoning of discussions. If these issues extend into other namespaces, then we should consider an overall site ban. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from AfD. To the best of my knowledge I have had no interactions with Jack4576, although I did see his appalling vote at the RfA, where he voted oppose essentially because "the candidate supports policy and I disagree with that policy". But his behavior in this discussion has been equally appalling. After the bludgeoning issue was raised many times above and after strong advice from Lightburst, he finally agreed to stop posting in this thread. He then proceeded to post in this thread nine more times in the next hour, even arguing that he is not bludgeoning because I am not replying to every comment. If he is unable to stop from bludgeoning in a thread where his bludgeoning conduct is being discussed, it seems unlikely he will refrain from doing so elsewhere.
  Equally concerning to me is his repeated misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of policy. In this very thread he has demonstrated incorrect understanding of WP:OWNTALK and WP:CBAN, and when this was pointed out them (by several different editors in each case), they did not respond with something like "oh, I see what you mean; I was wrong". They either ignored the responses or continued to argue their incorrect understand of policy. This does not seem to be behavior of an editor who is able to easily accept feedback about their misreading of policy. CodeTalker (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  A novel allegation of my spamming of threads was raised, and it was necessary to post an additional comment in response to those allegations. That clearly does not go to the bludgeoning issue. Jack4576 (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support PARTIAL AfD & RfA ban. The problem is with Jack's behaviour and specifically with their constant disruptive arguing; not with their support of the keep option. Therefore, I propose that Jack be allowed to cast a single !vote accompanied by a concise justification, but without tagging or even mentioning any other participant, and be disallowed to post anything beyond that, including responding or commenting. This I think would be a fair, targeted response to the identified problem. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

*:I'd support this. My main objection to his conduct has to do with his battleground mentality. If this was just a matter of "being an inclusionist," that of course is not remotely -- in of itself -- worthy of sanction. Changing my mind here. After extensive examination of Jack's AfD record, I'm far less sanguine about him participating in them at any level. He routinely votes based on spurious rationales, routinely chastises noms for unproven allegations of failure to perform WP:BEFORE (while making rapid-fire Keep votes on multiple AfDs, therefore plainly not troubling himself to do any research) and has far more than his share of clashes. Ravenswing 01:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment User:Newimpartial was fairly recently put under a very concrete no-bludgeoning restriction. I see a lot of commentary above about bludgeoning specifically (and, I mean, just look at how this thread has gone), I wonder if something similar would be worth a try. --JBL (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's a good idea, considering Jack's made an absurd 91 edits to this page, all of which are from this thread, let alone the bludgeoning on AfD. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  JML1148, you yourself have made over 25 edits here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  This thread is about a particular editor. It must feel *very* personal. If a number of editors were saying a number of negative things about you, wouldn't you feel you needed to respond? Would it not have your quivering attention? I am not defending the behavior at AfD, but bludgeoning there is a different problem than the voluminous posts at this particular discussion. That said, Jack4576, perhaps it would be better to respond less often, quality over quantity, eh? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see the problem with 91 edits to a discussion in which he's defending himself! It's got to feel to him like he's been dragged into the Star Chamber --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  And how many of us are objecting to his extreme combativeness, as opposed to his record at AfD? I am very disinterested in multiple iterations of "Yeah, but these OTHER editors suck, whaddabout them?" The way to allay worries about WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is not to double and triple down on it. Ravenswing 01:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think I should state that, while I will defend his ability to respond, I don't think Jack is helping his case here one iota. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is that, after agreeing to stop commenting on this page after a comment by Barkeep, they continued to bludgeon the page and then said that they weren't because they weren't replying to every comment. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  My comments since Barkeep49's intervention have been to defend myself from a novel and distinct allegation of AfD spam from Timothy. (and from editor's bizarrely claiming that doing such a thing amounts to bludgeoning) Jack4576 (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is that you are spamming AfD, especially after I opened this ANI discussion. You have just made 8 !votes in the span of 10 minutes, then returned to ANI to make this comment. Looking through your edit history, there are many of these patterns, not including bludgeoning individual discussions. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 02:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  None of those votes were problematic and all conformed with policy. Jack4576 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Basing a judgment entirely upon the headline of an article you say you cannot access is, well, a bit problematic. Headlines are not reliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  You're being quite kind in calling that response a bit problematic. At level best it's ignorance of the requirements of SIGCOV that ought to disqualify any AfD vote such an editor makes. At worst, it's willful ignorance that's just this side of trolling. Ravenswing 17:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from AfD and from deletion discussions, broadly construed. I do not recall interacting with this editor previously, so I think that I am uninvolved. The sheer number of their comments in this conversation is mind-boggling. I see stunning misinterpretations of policy. I see endless wikilawyering and nitpicking. I see repeated refusals to recognize and accept community consensus. I see arguing for novel policy interpretations in inappropriate places. I see bizarre comments that are either trolling or functionally equivalent to trolling. I see rapid-fire AfD !votes that are little more than repetitive personal attacks on the nominator. Our most precious asset by far is the volunteer time of our thoughtful, competent, productive editors. Those editors who squander that precious asset by endless argumentation cause damage to the project that must be stopped. Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from AfD per above + after closing some AfDs Jack's arguments aren't even IAR, they seem more about POINT. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• AfD ban my sock sense is still tingling, but will let it go. This user does not seem to function well in meta-discussions about inclusionism vs. deletionism, having a strong opinion is fine, but hammering others incessantly with it is unbecoming. If this somehow does not pass, then a one-afd-one vote restriction is choice #2. Zaathras (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from AfD User does not constructively contribute to discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for AfD first I would like to disclose that I opened an AfD here and Jack !voted keep. I agree with the final consensus to keep and I probably should have done a more thorough BEFORE. However, I felt that Jack's comments were not constructive, took a look at their AfD stats, and later came across his !vote at RfA. Their understading of notability guidelines is poor, but I don't think that's the reason for the ban. I think the topic ban should be put in place due to their uncivil comments. Going through their comments in their AfD discussions and their talk page shows that they do not interact with other editors in a civil manner even when their !votes match community consensus. I'm not familiar with the process at ANI so if my !vote doesn't follow standard conventions or expectations feel free to disregard my !vote when closing the discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  friend, you opened an AfD on numberphile

  Merely expressing ‘bafflement’ at a nomination -that- absurd ought not be considered uncivil. Such noms are to the detriment of the project (as a time waste, among other issues). Such comments are fairly restrained

  I acknowledge that my understanding of the SIGCOV rule was incorrect in that AfD, I have learned and am not repeating that argument anymore Jack4576 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. People should be able to express their opinions, and if his comments are non-policy based it takes extremely little effort for the closer to discount them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jack comes across to me as a good-faith but perhaps somewhat inexperienced AfD contributor. In some cases this has led to not-very-helpful contributions to AfDs, or mere pile-ons, but in other cases it has provided a helpful fresh perspective. I have good faith, also, that when their comments are not adequately supported by our guidelines, they will be duly discounted by the closing admins on the AfDs. We should be extremely wary of banning people from contributing based on our perceived quality of their opinions, and I don't think the inconvenience of wading through a few low-quality opinions when making a close justifies a topic ban. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you David, although it appears the incumbent perspective is having its day today. Jack4576 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Here is another case DE where Jack refuses to accept policy and votes to keep a BLP even though they admit it does not have sources, because in their words, we should keep "To stay on the safe side".[303] The 404 source in question is to the subject's school newspaper (which is clear to all from the reftext) and obviously fails IS. To claim we should keep BLPs even when they know their is no sources "To stay on the safe side" shows they either cannot understand WP:BLP or refuse to accept BLP.

Here is another example from an unsourced BLP, their claim to keeping this BLP is "WP needs more Africa content". [304].  // Timothy :: talk  21:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In the case of a BLP, the ‘safe side’ in a borderline AfD should always be “delete”!!!

A poorly referenced, lightly watched article on an obscure person carries the greatest potential for harm in real life.

This slight bias towards deletion shouldn’t apply to other articles.— A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Jack4576 (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from AfD only for now per Cullen328 and Curbon7 who said it better than I could. The conducts at several AfDs, most prominently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Murphy (Australian politician) (which I'm uninvolved in) seem to evince a battleground attitude. Given that Jack has already been reminded/warned multiple times on the matter, e.g., User talk:Jack4576#Conduct on AfD and civility, User talk:Jack4576#Civility, User talk:Jack4576#Notability and Wikipedia etc.... a topic ban from AfD is a logical step. However, I think that's sufficient for the time being. The user has contributed less than desirably to other pages within Wikipedia namespaces, i.e., unjustified RfCs on notability and superficial GA reviews (e.g., Talk:How to Rule Your Own Country: The Weird and Wonderful World of Micronations/GA1 is a drive-by review, passed around 20 minutes after starting the review with no comments on improvements whatsoever, which is quite rare for GA reviews), but for the time being I am willing to AGF that participation in these other areas within the project seem to be of good-faith and common mistakes for inexperienced editors to make, instead of being related to broader issues, given that the editor can contribute positively in other areas, such as the interesting and well-written law articles. VickKiang (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why is Jack reviewing GAs? He hardly has a reasonable understanding of almost any policy. Those GA reviews should be removed and the articles rereviewed. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'll submit re-reviews for all of the GA's he passed that I don't think are at that standard. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've listed the one that VickKiang linked, the other that Jack reviewed was failed, and there is significant ongoing discussion that I don't want to intervene with. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from AfD because of the editor's proclivity to WP:BLUDGEON, which he is also doing here, so in addition to the topic ban, he should also be warned not to bludgeon any discussions. The editor sometimes takes a long time to understand other editors' positions due to a weak grip on notability guidelines. This, combined with a tendency to make numerous comments and replies, causes situations which can't be described in any other way but being a waste of time... or maybe a very slow learning process. An example of that (ultimately changed the !vote to keep after being introduced to a simple and widely publicized notability concept, so all of that energy expenditure was for next to nothing). —Alalch E. 22:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support AFD Topic Ban. Having reviewed the evidence here I this is required to prevent disruption. The incorrect understanding of policy + the tendency to bludgeon discussions with their incorrect understanding are just resulting in a massive time sink. I don't see any evidence that things are going to improve on their own in the immediate future - even in the section below they are still insisting that comments from involved editors do not count towards consensus, despite it having been explained to them multiple times that this is incorrect and having no basis in policy (WP:CBAN) 192.76.8.64 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Here is another one of Jack's disruptive claims, "The photograph File:OneWorldTradeCenterLongBeach.jpg provides a strong visual argument that this building is notable in multiple regards ".[305]. Jack is actually claiming that a photo of a building taken for the Commons shows notability. I said this before, but I think this is more evidence this individual is trolling; claiming a photo by an editor shows notability is beyond the point where anyone can AGF. The closer ignored the claim [306] but had to relist because of it.  // Timothy :: talk  01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  That was not a disruptive claim, and was acknowledged as correct by User:Doncram. Visual sources may also be reliable sources. Conveniently, you leave that part out. Jack4576 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is completely wrong. Pictures are not reliable sources that prove notability. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support AfD topic ban and anti-bludgeoning restriction. Any editor, regardless of the subject, who bludgeons a discussion creates a timesink for everyone else to wade through, restating the same points over and over and expecting a different response is pointless, bordering near insanity. This is not to say Jack is doing this, but it is coming close. Also per Ravenswing above, voting implies that the editor in question who is casting the vote has done a BEFORE check, so as to see whether the subject meets GNG, five votes in seven minutes does not instill confidence whichever side of the childish deletionist/inclusionist fence you sit on. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 02:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  When SIGCOV is already linked within an article, and a keep vote can be cast on that basis; a BEFORE check is unnecessary.

  Those Keep votes were quick because SIGCOV already existed and was linked. It took a moment's glance to evaluate GNG in those instances.

  Where GNG isn't established through existing sources, I always perform a BEFORE before casting a deletion vote. Jack4576 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  You once !voted keep with the assumption that a source's title proves SIGCOV, which is not true per WP:HEADLINE. I still don't think you understand what "significant coverage" implies. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Somehow I get the feeling that if the votes were Delete, we wouldn't be here. If people feel that the comments are illogical, let the comments speak for themselves. No need to censor what you don't agree with. --Rschen7754 03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Closure

I believe that there is a emerging concensus to TBAN Jack from AfD. As I leave this comment, I count 20 !votes for a TBAN (including myself and Kashmiri's partial TBAN vote) to 6 !votes opposing a TBAN (including Jack and Barkeep's comment, which wasn't a !vote but was in support of Jack), with 2 editors making comments but having no clear opinion. I'm not that familiar with AN/I, so I am wondering if an admin should close this now or leave it for a bit longer so that more editors can comment. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BANPOL, it needs to stay open for a minimum of 24 hours. El_C 00:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. We'll see what it's like once 24 hours have elapsed since the start of the discussion. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see quite such a convenient consensus. I see a lot of discussion with extensive "comment" sections that don't commit to supporting, and a handful of well-expressed opposes too. And this is not supposed to be a simple pile-on vote is it? For what it's worth I oppose the topic ban strongly. I disagree completely with Jack's arguments, viewpoint, and complete disregard of policy on notability, but (1) how difficult is it for an AfD closer to ignore non-policy-based, short "keeps" like Jack's? And (2) Jack is what happens when you have an open, collaborative encyclopaedia: people disagree with you. Banning Jack looks uncomfortably like banning disagreement. Not a great message to send. Elemimele (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course consensus is not a matter of counting, but 24 supports and 4 opposes is a clear consensus in anybody's book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

+1. Plainly Elemimele disagrees with the consensus -- fair enough -- but that doesn't equate to a consensus not existing. Ravenswing 17:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

He has explicitly said that he does not see a consensus, and not that he merely disagrees with it. Jack4576 (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

(1) not when a pile-on plainly exists, (2) not when many of the ‘support’ votes are involved in the disagreement

Far from clear really Jack4576 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You say "pile-on," I say that a great many otherwise uninvolved editors agree with the sentiment. (Any interaction with you I've had is in this thread; I'm an example of the numerous editors who became accustomed to your way of doing things right here, and who haven't liked what we've seen.) With that, how many comments is this now for you after you averred that you were done commenting here. Ten or so? Ravenswing 00:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As A. B. has noted, 'bludgenoning' is not so much an issue when responding to direct questions and direct allegations in a thread about my own banning. I've been restrained in the volumne of my replies since Barkeep49 raised it as an issue.

You yourself need to watch the volume of your comments in this discussion. You're approaching a problematic volume, especially in this 'close' section.

There are also a fair number of editors here that have opposed a topic ban, which you do not acknowledge. Jack4576 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It's been nearly two days since this discussion was opened, and there is still a clear consensus for a TBAN of Jack from AfD; as I count it, it is 27 !votes for to 8 !votes against. I think it's time to close this discussion now, as there has been sufficient time for editors to comment and there is a clear consensus, especially as Jack has continued to make unwise AfD !votes while this discussion has been ongoing. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

JML1148 I think it would be preferable if someone other than yourself performed the close. You are involved in the dispute and it would be inappropriate for you to be the one to observe consensus

27 - 8 is not the count; insofar as a “count” is at all relevant anyway

(1) it is not a simple vote, (2) per the banning policy, editors involved in a dispute are not to be counted for the purpose of forming a consensus toward banning. Many of the voters above are involved in the AfDs, raising concerns that this is banning disagreement. To avoid that perception, only editors not involved should be counted for that purpose

JML for all your accusations of bludgeoning, you have made way too many comments in this thread; which isn’t even about you, and now here you are attempting to prematurely close the discussion

I also note you’ve just gone and opened a reassessment on one of my GA reviews quite randomly. Feels like harassment really. Glass houses, stones, etcetera

Jack4576 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"Many?" Prove it. Let's see diffs: evidence of every single time an editor involved in this ANI complaint has clashed with you on an AfD. You've already been shown up to get it wrong by claiming that I was one of them. Ravenswing 00:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I just did it myself: looked through every AfD discussion you've been in before this ANI complaint was opened. (There's an hour-plus of my life I'm not getting back.) Leaving aside that it shows up numerous cases where your expressed grounds were shaky or spurious (routinely and without proof accusing noms of failing to perform WP:BEFORE, quoting essays as the reason for keeping an article, misunderstanding policies or guidelines, inventing your own spurious non-policy based rationales, and the all-time "Keep because it would be a shame to delete this work," although your argument that one subject was notable solely because someone had uploaded a photo of it to Wikimedia was also a doozy), while there were some where you and participants in this thread had civil disagreements, you outright clashed with only two: LibStar and JML1148. Two editors comprise "many?" Seriously? Ravenswing 01:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The editors I've clashed with at Talk:Chicago CRED also have mysteriously shown up here en-masse; despite my participation at that talk page being civil and reasonable. Other editors I've clashed with at AfDs (that you missed(?) how(?) I thought you spent an hour going through it(?)); include: Nythar, TipsyElephant, plus all of the others I brought up earlier in this thread.

If this isn't a pile-on and banning disagreement, I don't know what possibly could meet that threshold. As Randy Kryn has pointed out above, the 'deletion crew' appears to be having its day. Well done to you all. This thread is a joke. Reasonable minds may differ, and I count the reasonable minds in this discussion are far from unanimous. Jack4576 (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It's just Jack desperately trying to spin it to discount the "many" that advocate topic bans should be disregarded. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Jack is again spamming keep votes at AfD, 5 votes in 7 minutes. [307].  // Timothy :: talk  01:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Wrong, not spam, simple votes on the facts, with reasons accompanying the votes.

  Primarily in instances where SIGCOV already included within the articles. Jack4576 (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  So you think you can do an adequate WP:BEFORE check, AND type out your response, in a minute flat? That's what you're asking us to believe? Ravenswing 02:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  The sources were already included in the article in most of those votes. This can be determined at a glance after opening the articles. I'm tired of replying to your repeated comments here Ravenswing , let some other editors get a word in. Jack4576 (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Although I guess this is frowned upon, Jack is far from the only AfD participant who does this, some do it on a regular basis. Picking this habit as a point-of-order disregards those many others and seems to imply that Jack is alone in doing so. He isn't. And Jack, please consider that these commentors are acting in good faith - they actually believe that the best way to solve a problem is to ban it and not to allow you to grow into a better editor. You seem to enjoy AfD, and just need to watch your language, read and act on Wikipedia's Five Pillars, and not display such open hostility towards other editors. Breaking those habits go along with the learning curve. I'd probably ban you from AfD for a week, maybe two, yeah, that's the ticket, but going from zero to indef in a single leap doesn't seem fair and shows that maybe other editors aren't accepting that your intentions are in good faith. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  As I understand it, the purpose of a WP:BEFORE in a notability discussion is to obtain additional sources. If I can already see enough sources in the article, (if the nomination reason is only stated to be notability) I reach my conclusion on notability then and there. For 'delete' votes, I always perform WP:BEFORE

  I note your message Randy Kryn; understood and appreciated Jack4576 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not only is no one compelling you to respond to me, this is what, something like your fifteenth comment after you stated that you weren't going to comment any more? To use one of your repeated catchphrases, pfft. Ravenswing 04:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hypocritical behaviour demonstrated in its completeness by your comment here. You are not the subject of this banning discussion, your over-participation in this discussion lacks excuse. Jack4576 (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ravenswing, you’re up to 14 or 15 comments yourself since this discussion opened 20 May — and you’re not the person having to defend yourself like Jack is.

  — A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment — here you can see Jack spamming "Question: has the nominator fulfilled WP:BEFORE?" on multiple AfDs without further explanation (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8). Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

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

USER:Longway22 breached an rules again and again

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

And I have warned him with a {{subst:uw-vandalism2|page}} before(diff).(MINQI (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC))

You should not be warning them with a vandalism template, their edits may be disruptive, but they are not vandalism. WP:VANDALISM has a very specific meaning. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

OK,I don't know which template should be used. I just found "{{subst:uw-vandalism2|PageName}} ~~~~ (suitable for intentional nonsense or disruption)", which is more suitable than other vandalism templates to his behavuor. Thank you for your reminder. MINQI (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a (bafflingly complex) list of escalating warning templates at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates, but {{uw-disruptive1}} and its children are useful for when it's not vandalism but it is... well, disruptive.

But please don't jump to a Level 2 warning to start off with. It's tempting – very very tempting – and we've all done it at some point, but it's counterproductive: the next editor who wants to warn a user has to decide whether to go to Level 3 for a second offence, or to not warn at all until a third offence that would warrant a Level 3 kicks in.

If the disruptive editor continues, the warnings are out of whack when an admin reviews them prior to deciding whether to block and for how long. This makes more work for our admins and potentially leads to more disruption whilst the admin is deciding what to do. — Trey Maturin™ 18:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thinking on, @MINQI:, would you find Twinkle a useful tool? It automates a lot of processes, including providing a drop-down list of common warnings at various levels and providing the standard format for user talk page posts automatically.

As with all automated tools, you remain personally responsible for the edits you make with it, just as you do with your non-automated edits, but used responsibly it can cut down on the number of templates and processes you need to try to keep in your head when doing stuff around here! — Trey Maturin™ 18:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. MINQI (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to "Conversation in article talk space" templates ({{subst:uw-chat1|Talk:Article}}). Thank you again for your help. MINQI (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @MINQI, why not have a try on Wp:aiv for obvious vandal? It's significantly faster than Wp:Ani -Lemonaka‎ 23:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest as other local member have suggested,YOU and staffs should review my full report that have been reverted by Grachester ,I would like be same of other member in zhwiki that keep limited interactive actions with the one.PLease just read it. Longway22 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

IN simple word,the case in Transnational authoritarianism is an extended front of MINQI the same acts in zhwiki Longway22 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Longway22 Such long reports should be filed here, not on WP:AIV. WP:AIV is for obvious vandalism, spam or sockpuppetry. So both of you came to the wrong place and made reports more time-consuming.

BTW, if both of you cannot get along with each other, you can have a try for wikipedia:IBAN -Lemonaka‎ 16:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice but I think it should give what he has done a suitable sentence——his behaviour is disruptive but not enough to vandalism. I will do that with {{subst:uw-vandalism3|Article}} if he does it again. MINQI (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Janglyguitars is doing editing wars after a several warnings

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

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

If you could show some diffs it would be a big help, though right off the bat I'm not impressed with how Janglyguitars responded to your ANI notice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a content dispute that started almost a month ago, augmented by edit warring between Janglyguitars and UserFlash (Binksternet has also reverted Janglyguitars but only once a day, and Doctorhawkes also reverted Janglyguitars' earliest changes). Extensive discussion on talk page but hasn't reach consensus and Janglyguitars is editing to their preferred version in the meantime. Suggest short-term article block for Janglyguitars to stop the edit war, and that the talk page discussion continue to reach consensus on whether synth-pop is a genre or subgenre. Schazjmd (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, fuck off. Read the full discussion on the talk page and there’s no way @UserFlash will come out looking reasonable. I’m trying to edit the page so that it is neutral instead of pushing a certain point of view backed by one source but contradicted or omitted by others. My friend UserFlash is completely unwilling to compromise, never mind have an actual discussion or respond with any relevance to the points I’ve raised again and again. Apologies for losing my temper, but it’s extremely frustrating dealing with people like this who are so willfully uncomprehending and thoughtless. Janglyguitars (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I have pageblocked our cheerful friend Janglyguitars from Synth-pop and warned them that any further disruptive editing in the musical genre and subgenre area may result in additional sanctions up to a sitewide block. I had mostly written my block notice when I got distracted by real life off-Wikipedia and spent a few hours with my wife. So, I apologize for the delay in notifying the editor, but that has been done now. I encourage Janglyguitars to refrain from any further personal attacks of the type expressed in the last four words of the comment above. That type of rhetoric is not acceptable among colleagues on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Lovely! Janglyguitars (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion at Talk:Windows 10 version history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BMD Star disruptive behaviour despite previous final warnings

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

---

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

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

User:X4n6

User:X4n6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Came up on my radar today as they were edit warring contentious material back into a BLP, [308], [309], [310]. Was going to suggest a topic ban from BLPs but given their absolutely consistent battleground behavior on the article talk page, [311], [312], [313], their eagerness to go on the offensive with anyone who gives them feedback, [314], [315], [316], and their unresponsiveness to feedback on their talk page, [317], I think a NOTHERE ban is more appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you trying to topic ban me from my own talk page? After you posted this on my page, I responded with this. Which I meant. The rest is a discussion on the subject page where the edit log clearly shows I have patiently answered every question from every user. Often more than once when they haven't bothered to read the answer already given to another user. No doubt, if you weren't so uncivil in how you approach folks on their talk pages, you'd get responses more to your liking. Beyond that, you haven't even engaged in much discussion on the subject page. You have exactly 3 contributions to this discussion: an opinion supported by no WP policy here, a header change [318], which you unilaterally performed without either discussion or asking me, the author - which is required by SECTIONHEADINGOWN and here, a revert which is pretty flagrant edit-warring. Boomerang much? So should I report you? But suggesting a ban of opposing positions when you can't offer any policies that support your own position, is a pretty transparent attempt at trying to get your way by default. X4n6 (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

SECTIONHEADINGOWN does not "require" asking the "author" before changing a section header. I suggest you read it more closely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Per SECTIONHEADINGOWN: "Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible." You don't think that's a "requirement?" X4n6 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, X4n6, reading those diffs — can you try to be a little nicer? These other editors are human beings, too. Can’t we all just get along?—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm perfectly nice, thanks. But if you are arrogant or uncivil on my talk page as your opening comment, you've already abdicated good faith. Beyond that, this edit exemplifies my responses on the article's talk page. As you'll see, I actually went out of my way to ping folks who disagreed with me, to give them every opportunity to respond and discuss. If you have a problem with that, I'd be very interested in hearing it. X4n6 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM regarding "abdicated good faith", whatever that means. There are no recent examples of uncivil messages on your talk page that I can see. VQuakr (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Page block. It's probably too soon for a NOTHERE block, though I won't stand in the way if another admin thinks differently. I have page blocked X4n6 from Lauren Boebert and its talkpage for a month. Bishonen | tålk 12:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC).

  An AP2 topic ban looks worth considering… Courcelles (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Goodness. So listen, I've been around here a few minutes and seen a few things. But I readily confess that I've never experienced a block this long in all my years. And for a cause that wasn't even explained here by the blocking admin. No warning? No discussion? No AGF? So would it be too much to ask for any of that before a month long topic block, or has that horse already left the barn? Before offering me the option to appeal on my talk page, I think it's only fair to ask for clarification of the charges. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the reason(s) for a month long topic block of a long time user be crystal clear. X4n6 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

"No warning"??!! [319], [320], [321], [322]. You do understand your talk page history is visible, right? VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, VQuakr. X4n6, I think you also misunderstand about the length of blocks — you can't compare a page-block with your three previous sitewide blocks. A month would be long for a sitewide block. For a page-block, it's short, for me personally probably the shortest I've ever given. In order to be any use, these blocks have to keep an editor away from a page for an amount of time that actually gives the page and its other editors a well-earned rest from the disruption. Incidentally, by "topic block", do you mean "topic ban"? That's what Courcelles is suggesting (I have some sympathy), and is a horse of a different colour. Click on my link if you're interested. As for your request for "clarification of the charges" (which I didn't, as you say, "even" explain here on ANI), I'm not seeing it. My message to you, on your page, was, I thought, painstakingly clear. You'll have to explain what more you want. Bishonen | tålk 22:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC).

Where to start wp:nothere

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

---

Unknown editor8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user seems to be a not-here account that is edit-warring, making PA's [[323]] (and threats to block evade) and Bizare legal threats [[324]]. Seemingly to POV push. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Note the blatant threat to block evade tells me they need a range ban. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Indeffed Clearly NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

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

User avoiding to talk with me

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

---

Yswj700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Acolex2 and @Yswj700 You both look to be edit warring, which is a no no. I further note that Acolex2 made the first edit here, which was subsequently reverted by Yswj700. At this point WP:BRD applies and everything should have moved to the talk page. Please stop the edit warring and discuss the matter on the talk page. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

What should I do if he continues not to join the talk? Acolex2 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Acolex2 There are a list of steps and options for handling content disputes at WP:DR. You can always post a nuetrally worded request for opinions from other experienced editors on the talk pages of any relevant wiki-project. That said, reverting an edit and then refusing to discuss it, is not helpful behavior. But bear in mind that most editors' lives don't revolve around Wikipedia. People have things to do in the real world and some time should be given to respond. Courtesy ping @Yswj700. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Acolex2 (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing: mass replacement of "committed suicide"

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

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

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

• Comment From MOS:SUICIDE: "The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia, although many external style guides discourage it as being potentially stigmatising and offensive to some people. Do with this as you will. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Then it should be up to the article's consensus whether to use the phrasing or not. – Callmemirela 🍁 15:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the many external style guides that the term is stigmatizing. But, unless MOS changes, mass replacement is clearly disruptive editing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

No-one is required to follow the MOS. It is a guideline. Black Kite (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

There was an RFC about this (I ran it) with the conclusion the language should be on a case-by-case basis. This is purely disruptive. Masem (t) 21:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

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

There's nothing wrong with making a replacement like this. If Damien Linnae changes it and someone else contests it, however, it should be discussed at the respective talk page to find consensus because, well, MOS:SUICIDE says what it awkwardly says. The only question here is about whether it's appropriate to make lots of these changes. Any mass change that isn't an obvious fix is likely to ruffle someone's feathers, so my advice would simply be to slow down. Do a few, wait to see if any of them are contested, take it to the talk page if they are, and do a few more later. If P Aculeius wants to challenge them, it can happen on an article-by-article basis, but making hundreds of similar changes makes it harder. I don't know why "it's not banned" would motivate anyone to change it back, but they'd be justified in doing so per WP:BRD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• And this is completely correct - we've had this discussion before. There's nothing wrong with what User:Damien Linnane is doing. If the OP wants to challenge any of their changes, they should do it on a case by case basis. I agree, however, that the use for biographies of people that died many centuries ago, there may not be as much of an issue as the recently deceased. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

If they were doing it on one page, or a handful, that would be true. But they've done it on hundreds of articles over the past few days. That's a WP:FAIT situation. As you yourself imply - you believe that an editor can make a mass-edit across hundreds of pages with no more explanation or discussion than c/e, and then if someone objects they have to dispute it on a case-by-case basis? That's unworkable and contrary to WP:FAIT - anything an editor does must by default be as easy to reverse as it was to do. Obviously it is WP:BOLD to change hundreds of articles in the exact same way at once, unilaterally deciding for or against a particular wording in a wide area; but someone who objects and wants to BRD would have to (and would be, by policy, justified to) revert hundreds of articles at once. The fact that such disputes across hundreds of articles are undesirable and disruptive is precisely why WP:FAIT exists and why it essentially places the burden on the responsibility for that situation on the person who moved first, because otherwise making hundreds of edits and then demanding that other people contest each one individually before reverting them would break our processes. People shouldn't make the same or similar edits hundreds of times with no prior discussion, at least not if they have any reason to think it might be controversial (and this was an obviously controversial change, which ten seconds examining the past of relevant policy would have made obvious.) If they do insist on doing it, they should expect that their mass-edit can be just as quickly and easily mass-reverted, and when that happens they should accept that they screwed up and move on to discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

If it were not for MOS:SUICIDE, I would agree with you. Now (as I said above) the MOS is simply a guideline and no-one is required to follow it, however in this case unless Damien Linnane is actually degrading the articles I don't see the problem. Let's face it, in most cases it's simply changing "committed suicide" to "killed him/herself". These are synonyms - there is no degradation or confusion here. Black Kite (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:SUICIDE specifically says that The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia. Mass edits removing it are a functional attempt to remove it everywhere by WP:FAIT and clearly inappropriate. Furthermore, the RFC makes it obvious that any widespread change from one to the other would be controversial and lacks consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that "committed suicide" is always the best or most desirable wording—I typically prefer "killed himself", "took his own life", or even the slightly more elaborate "fell on his sword" (at least where this is literally true, or idiomatic by context) or "made an end of himself". In some instances the changes made by the editor in question are probably an improvement. But sometimes "committed suicide" is the simplest way to say it, and there's nothing wrong with saying it—that's what our guideline says.

It's frustrating having some editors appointing themselves "the language police" and expunging perfectly good constructions wherever they occur, without any particular need. A blanket replacement of the phrase with no other purpose effectively imposes a policy that the community has not agreed to and is unlikely to agree with, and it's hard to imagine anything more anti-collaborative than stating as a precondition for stopping that the admin community needs to form a consensus in order to stop it!

Imagine if this were any other contentious issue concerning Wikipedia policy, where your opinion differed from that of the editor making the mass changes, and insisted that he or she would not stop unless you could get the entire community to agree. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2009, and I've had lots of disagreements with other editors over wording or applying policy—but I've only referred things to ANI once or twice, and have done so now only because I think that taking this particular action for which there is no community consensus, and refusing to reconsider it without establishing such consensus against it, is detrimental to the whole encyclopedia. P Aculeius (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• I see this change as an improvement and the objections all seem to boil down to either vague procedural concerns or attempts to justify outdated language using dictionary definitions and etymology instead of actual real-world usage and understanding. We don't need a policy mandate to make widespread changes, in fact many MOS guidance encourages preferred language without requiring it. Without evidence that this is somehow causing harm, I see no problem. –dlthewave ☎ 17:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

But we specifically had an RFC which failed to produce preferred language, whose closure specifically encouraged people not to make these sort of mass-changes. If someone disagreed with the closure of that RFC, the appropriate thing to do is to hold another RFC, not to try and force through their preferred wording via WP:FAIT. This isn't just some "vague procedural concern", this is central to how we resolve disputes. Being WP:BOLD and deciding to IAR is acceptable in a single article (where it can be reasonably reversed if someone objects), but not when editing hundreds of articles in a way that would cause massive disruption if someone decides to revert you; and making a plainly controversial edit only for people to say "now you cannot reverse this without disputing it one by one; it is done and can't be undone with that same ease" is textbook FAIT. WP:FAIT is extremely important, not just a random procedural hurdle. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm changing a contested term to a neutral one. It's really not complicated. For the life of me I can't understand why this makes P Aculeius so upset. His entire argument seems to be 'the term hasn't been officially banned yet and I don't personally see a problem with it, therefore I find the change offensive and everything should be written the way I like it'. I really think the mature thing to do here would simply be to agree to disagree.

Contrary to what I believe P Aculeius is implying in his initial comment here, I am also deliberately not mass using the term "died by suicide" as it also strikes me as a euphemism. I think in my hundreds of edits I maybe used it half a dozen times when based on the wording flow it seemed appropriate. I am mass replacing "committed suicide" with "killed him/themself", with a few exceptions where that wording would be awkward. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• This is a pretty clear-cut case WP:FAIT behavior, and the previous Village Pump RfC noted that A minority of editors think "commit suicide" is archaic (emphasis mine). As the closer noted, and I will echo here, I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found. The comments by those who personally see this as an improvement seem to be ignoring the pretty clear issue here in that mass changes were made without discussion explicitly against previous community consensus. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: I didn't accuse you of changing all—or any—of the instances to "died by suicide", nor was it my intent to do so. I mentioned that alternative in the third paragraph of my report solely by way of contrast: if I took matters into my own hands according to my personal preference, I would crusade through Wikipedia replacing that absurd phrase wherever it occurs. But I know that many editors prefer it in spite of the circumlocution, and we would simply go around arguing in endless circles. No matter how justified I felt in my actions, they would still be disruptive precisely because I would be ignoring the consensus—in the lack of consensus—of the community.

What you and the other editors supporting your action fail to see is that you are imposing your viewpoint on the whole encyclopedia, just as I would be if I changed all the instances the other way. "Anything but this" is just as bad no matter which phrase you oppose, and not very different from saying "this is the only acceptable thing". Either way requires community consensus, and that is the one thing that we can be certain does not exist.

For what it's worth, I might agree with your wording in many instances. What I disagree with is imposing a blanket policy on all instances and all articles, without any purpose or intention of improving the wording, besides the absolute refusal to allow the phrase "committed suicide" anywhere. I strongly disagree with anyone who calls this a mere technical or procedural disagreement. It is not: collaborative editing and seeking consensus to undertake contentious changes are core policies of Wikipedia, without which the entire project would grind to a halt. P Aculeius (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I've never tried to use repetition or volume to justify my edits, so I'm confused as to why you think WP:FAIT is relevant. Before this discussion was started, only P Aculeius appeared to be opposing my edits. He suggested I stop my edits because he stated he disagreed with them, whereas I stated I wasn't going to because I go by consensus instead of blindly following the suggestions lone editors give me.

I wasn't aware of that RFC, or that this has been an on-going source of contention on wikipedia for years. Essentially, I saw an instance of 'committed suicide', and changed it for reasons I've made clear. Without planning to do so in advance, I then went down a rabbit hole of changing it en-masse. I assumed some individual edits would be reverted, in which case I wasn't going to contest them further. Frankly, I figured if certain people felt the need to put energy into fighting to use a more stigmatising term, that was their prerogative and I wasn't going to stop them, though I also assumed most people either would not be fussed or would agree with me. Since only about 1% of my changes have been reverted, this would appear to confirm my theory.

Yes, the closer of that RFC did urge people not to make mass-changes, though I also note there was no ruling on whether that would be disruptive. In any case, I wasn't aware of that until now. I note the closer did mention the issue could be revisited in a year; that was more than two years ago. Working in the field of mental health, I've observed first-hand that opinions on both language and awareness of mental health stigma are progressively evolving (in the direction I happen to be advancing) with time. I think we should follow the closer's suggestion of revisiting the issue at RFC. I don't think I've done anything wrong, though I'll stop doing this on such a large scale until such time as there's a new RFC. I won't be starting an RFC immediately, though if anyone else wishes to do so I'll happily weigh in on the discussion. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Throughout this you have repeatedly accused me of being closed-minded and not open to the possibility I am incorrect, when I've never actually stated that. I.e. "he made clear that anyone who disagreed with him must be wrong" and "you've assumed that all reasonable people agree with you, or that anyone who has experience with mental illness would agree" - Incidentally I never said the latter either, you misquoted me, I said they'd be more likely to agree. Has the irony occurred to you that by comparison, unlike me you actually have repeatedly and explicitly stated that every person who doesn't agree with your opinion on this matter is wrong? Ranging from accusing people who agree with me of not understanding the English language, to accusing everyone who supported my actions here of "fail[ing] to see" things the way you want them to? So if I (at least according to you) think all reasonable people agree with me, that's a problem, but when you explicitly say everyone who opposes you is wrong, that's perfectly balanced editing behaviour. Is that what you're trying to tell everyone? Damien Linnane (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

112.200.9.54 and perpetuating hoaxes?

112.200.9.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what's the story here, but this IP has seemingly added a fake radio station on Ultrasonic Broadcasting System, which is apparently a problem enough for a hidden note asking not to do so. Seems like Superastig may know something about this? I don't, but it seems like something that's not "obvious vandalism" enough for WP:AIV. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

TPA revocation request for 181.64.36.107

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

---

Based on 181.64.36.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s edits to their talk page since — and before, for that matter — getting blocked, the chances of them making any reasonable unblock request are zero at most. TPA revocation seems warranted. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Apparently I have been "FIRED" simply for notifying them of this discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Boynamedsue - WP:NPA and disruptive behavior

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

In a nutshell, Boynamedsue has accused editors at Articles for deletion/2007 Alderney UFO sighting of canvassing. Boynamedsue's premise is that some editors who ivote "delete" came there from a posting on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard [325] regarding this AfD. The claim is essentially that such editors are biased because of this post.

Here is the url for the complete FTN discussion regarding the page now under consideration for deletion [326].

• Here is the first instance [327] accusing jps of posting to FTN "with the intent of attracting support for deletion" and "the way the notice is framed not neutral. Then Boynamedsue claims "That board is also something of a meeting point for users who identify as "sceptics", who they might reasonably believe would support their arguments." I believe the word "they" refers to jps. So Boynamedsue is not only singling out one editor, he is also perhaps smearing all participants on the FTN. Interestingly, this is only one post
• Here [328] at around the same time, Boynamedsue posts a notice at the top of the page supporting their belief that the AfD is now tainted by CANVASSING.
• Here he is warned about violating AGF and not comprehending the use of WP:FRINGE. [329].
• Here, at around the same time, is a talk page warning about engaging in personal attacks [330]. They replied accusing the author of the warning of engaging in BATTLEGROUND behavior [331].
• Here they continue to press their belief that the AfD is tainted by the FTN post [332].
• Again, pressing the same belief with a longer post [333], while also seeming show a misunderstanding of dealing with fringe material on Wikipedia.
• Replying to a different editor [334] they write: "There is very strong evidence, given the non-neutral message, the partisan forum, and the fact that of 8 commenters on this RfC, 4 have voted keep, and 4 have voted delete. All of the latter are regular posters at Fringe Theories Noticeboard."
• And to another editor [335]: However, the choice to link at that forum and nowhere else had a vote-stacking effect here.
• Presses the issue with still another editor [336]
• Here this disruptive behavior is noted for benefit of the closer [337].

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

• My response to this, is simply that, according to WP:CANVASS, canvassing did occur at that page. Where canvassed votes occur, signalling this for the eventual closer is necessary.

The messages which constituted canvassing were the following: [338]. These messages were left by jps.

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

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

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

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

It is also worth pointing out that JPS has also linked this discussion to FTN, which I do not feel to be in the interests of natural justice in a case which may lead to administrative sanctions. This notice is paired with a claim to have found discussion of this AfD on pro-UFO websites, falsely implying the two situations to be connected. [339]

I would just add that, some users from FTN (though absolutely not Steve Quinn) have engaged in personal attacks and on the AfD page and on various talk pages. I have not chosen to complain about them officially but this has definitely contributed to the bad feeling on that page. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Explain in simple language how taking an issue to the noticeboard dedicated to those issues is canvassing? Read up on W:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, neither of them mean "natural justice" for this issue. That noticeboard exists for a reason and posting there for more eyes on an issue is it fulfilling it's function. Heiro 20:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Posting a non-neutral message to a place where you know you will get support is canvassing. If they had posted to a range of boards who might have different opinions on this, it would have been fine. While it may not have been a deliberate violation of WP:CANVASS, it had a votestacking effect which can be seen on the AfD page. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It had the intended effect of getting editors well versed in the WP policies dealing with this kind of issue to look into it. Posting to multiple boards not concerned with this WP:FRINGE issue would have been canvassing. As I said, this was literally the board for this sissue being used correctly and for it's intended purpose. You take behavioral issues to ANI, you take vandalism to AIV, you take FRINGE to the fringe noticeboard, etc. Heiro 20:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not the case if multiple boards are related to this question. But it was actually a reliability question in any case, there are no Fringe theories on display here. Nobody disputes the facts of the case, which is that several people claimed to have seen unusual lights in the sky. A fringe theory "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field".Boynamedsue (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That does not make them bad editors, it does however mean that they will be more likely to vote to delete articles related to UFOs and other supernatural topics.^{[citation needed]} This is a vague inference that, even if true, neglects the possibility that people who hang out at FTN are simply more knowledgeable about how to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines on fringe subjects because they've been around the block a few times. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you point to the wording in WP:FRINGE that supports that? A fringe theory "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". The mainstream view here is that 3 or 4 people reported seeing lights in the sky, which is all the article says. This text was placed here in error as I was answering two messages at once --Boynamedsue (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

As above, this is not the case on this occasion. The users here are suggesting that WP:GNG can't apply to subjects that third parties may connect to Fringe Theories. When we have WP:SIGCOV of an event in the Times, Telegraph, BBC and New Yorker, trying to apply WP:FRINGE to it is a complete misuse of the policy. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

No, WP:FRINGE is applicable because of the subject matter. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

What XOR'easter said. UFOs are fringe, and we do not in wikivoice proclaim their existence because a few credulous newpaper reporters write a story on one supposed sighting. Heiro 22:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The article does not, and should not say UFOs exist, that would be WP:FRINGE. It does not state that the reports were true. It states the reports exist, because that's what reliable sources do, and we report what reliable sources say. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE applies because the article is about a UFO sighting. It's not a guideline that magically comes into play when bizarre claims are made and then becomes irrelevant if they are removed. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Totally disagree. If someone claims to see lights in the sky, and it is reported in RS, that is not a Fringe claim. What wording from WP:FRINGE makes you think it applies to reliable sources making reports about claims?Boynamedsue (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• WP:APPNOTE is clear that notifications on central locations like noticeboards are allowed. I personally am skeptical of notifications on wikiprojects (especially ones whose focus or theme is potentially partisan, since WP:INAPPNOTE forbids partisan notifications), but I don't think it's reasonable to interpret "interested in WP:FRINGE" as partisan, since that's a Wikipedia policy, and since such noticeboards are literally the textbook example of appropriate notifications. The wording could have been better but the argument that the audience at FRINGEN is partisan strikes me as absurd - it would be like saying "no, you can't notify BLPN because they're more likely to err on the side of avoiding BLP violations." We're supposed to do that! --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In this case, in practice it has meant a case in which users from FTN, and only users from FTN, have argued that an event covered in detail by The Times, The New Yorker, The Telegraph and the BBC is not notable enough to have a wikipage. And the arguments presented have been... idiosyncratic. As I said, if a variety of relevant boards had been advised, I would have had no problem. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The return of S201050066

S201050066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2607:fea8:28a1:3600:3087:5e6b:e3ad:1a8b (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous discussion: S201050066 and COVID-19 timeline pages

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

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

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

Frivolous (misguided?) legal threats from 73.103.178.195

At the time of this report, 73.103.178.195 has made two Talk Page comments with regard to Jonathan Sapirman, the 20-year-old who killed three people in a mall shooting perpetrated in Greenwood, Indiana in July 2022. The IP previously claimed that Wikipedia's page on the shooting is illegal [340] and later claimed (today) to be the shooter's mother [341]. Dubious and/or misguided to be sure, but I'm posting a notification here in case an administrator wants to action this anyway per WP:NLT. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Have left them a message here. If they are who they say then their distress is understandable. Probably (hopefully) no need to block them unless the threats continue. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I have removed derogatory information about the shooter's family which was cited to the clickbait aggregator Heavy.com. I do not think that this source meets the standard required by BLP policy to say that his was a "troubled family". Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

77.56.54.159 and ad hominem

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

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

2603:9001:300:81A:20A5:F2A2:2288:F451

Antisemitic comment in Talk:Battle of Bakhmut JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

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

LilianaUwU

This report is in regards to LilianaUwU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I cannot notify the user of this notice as their page is protected. If someone can do it for me, I would appreciate it.

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

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

I'm aware of this discussion. No need to warn me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As for your concerns: a bunch of sources were found in the short time this AfD existed (and I opened it on your behalf, assuming good faith) - so the notability concern is no more. As for your original question, of whether the article was created to "promote their website" - why would such an estabilished editor as Buidhe do that? I feel like the user who made Armenian genocide a featured article knows what they're doing at least somewhat when creating a new article. Granted, the closing was a bit hasty, but you've been acting in bad faith all this time. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The topic is obviously notable. The AfD close would still be a keep if left open 7 days, so it seems like a waste of time to reopen it. (t · c) buidhe 02:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. As I said, I acted in good faith and got an ANI report in return. (By the way, for those watching at home, the broken link above should link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the link. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely have not been acting in bad faith. I have countered the arguments presented earlier in the discussions and then I came back to follow up and saw you closed it as a non-admin without a policy and casting aspirations against me by saying I’m acting in bad faith? That’s the farthest from the truth. If other sources were found and put it, then that is fine. It doesn’t matter who created the article or why, it is about the content which is what I judged my decision on before I did WP:BEFORE and I did not find anything other than a bunch of sites mentioning him as a professor and unknown blogs doing interviews. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I got no hard feelings towards you, IP. But I really feel like I've been roped into something I didn't wanna get involved in because I wanted to be nice and help out. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU I went through the article just now. There are references that are much better and shows he meets the criteria. A lot of people do not have access to the library due to their limits. Had all of these or even a couple of them been there other than the 4 or 5 originally of which most pointed to his announcement as a professor I would not have asked for nomination. No hard feelings here either. This is why we have discussions and allow them to run more than 12 hours to work things out but since you closed it so fast under a non-policy closure, that alarms me. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I mainly do anti-vandalism work, so I didn't bother applying for the library. I keep forgetting that's even a thing - hence my (admittedly bad) aspersion of bad faith. Sorry for that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD all I used to find reviews was Google. There were reviews of his first book in, among others, Mind, Ethics, Philosophical Quarterly (those first three are major philosophy journals), Race & Class, and Bookforum. His second book was reviewed in, among others, The New Yorker, Jacobin, The Point Magazine, and the European Journal of Social Theory. No library access was necessary.

If you couldn't find any of these articles when doing WP:BEFORE you should not do deletion nominations. Furthermore, you need to understand that for notability, sources do not need to be in the article to show notability, they merely need to exist. Jahaza (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jahaza This ANI was about actions by the user. The debate is over about the sources. However, I will say you are incorrect in stating they do not have to be on the article. If you are going to write a BLP and have 5 references of which 3 only show he is a professor then yes, I have every right to nominate it. Some of the references, as I stated earlier are fine, but some you introduced include having to have a paid subscription (The Friend) which I would not really find trust worthy as a source. The others are on sites that give an assessment and try to get you to buy the book. I do not consider those bona-fide reviews of books if they are promoting the sale of it. But again, this was about something else completely. It has been addressed and an admin can close it if @LilianaUwU is ok with that. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean... if you're fine with me doing another involved close... just kidding, of course. Yeah, seems like the discussion is over, and I'm fine with it being closed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok have at ;) You can snow close it lol. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ErceÇamurOfficial (talk · contribs)

Persistent disruptive editing even after the user caught a 31 hour block last month. Most egregious example is that there was an RfC, which was closed with a consensus that Mertens should redirect to Mertens (surname), and that less than 10 days after the closure, the user went ahead and unilaterally redirected to Dries Mertens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voorts (talk • contribs) 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Certainly violates in some dose WP:CIR, but ErceÇamurOfficial did do the right thing after the RM closure. J947 † ^edits 06:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple issues issues in one deletion discussion

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

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charity_Majors

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

During the discussion process, the alt account Love The Andes has created a redirect to salvage the previous article [342]. I believe User:Love The Andes is a recruit of User:lizthegrey since the interaction tool gives: [343].

User:lizthegrey says this account is completely out of the blue in the following edit [344] but this does not correspond to the interaction pattern.

Later there was an investigation filed by User:lizthegrey against a random banned user User:SquareInARoundHole at [345], where she prompted me weirdly enough to file an investigation against herself. I do not believe this falls in the SPI discussion so I have filed it in the general incidents.

Also I think there seems to be an overall issue too with WP:COI in this discussion Adler3 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawn in favor of SPI. See below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

My COI is declared and I only edit under this one account. I truthfully, genuinely, have no idea who User:Love The Andes is (aside from a suspicion that they might be User:SquareInARoundHole), and have tried to do diligence to determine whether it's anyone associated with me or my company, and made clear that I expect anyone working with me to abide by the Wikimedia Foundation terms of service if they are going to be editing articles in spaces related to the company and its employees.

Boomerang -- you're a brand new account, and you're very actively participating at AfD and taking issues to ANI, in cases where uninvolved admins have chosen not to levy accusations. Have you edited under another account before? Lizthegrey (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No Adler3 (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I have filed it also in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lizthegrey now. Adler3 (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixed link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. That is the correct venue for this, not ANI. ANI is for chronic and intractable, or otherwise urgent issues that have no other place. I urge you to withdraw from ANI and let the checkusers and SPI admins do their job. Lizthegrey (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

How do you remove a discussion aside from blanking it Adler3 (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Strike it out with <s></s>. Lizthegrey (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Necrothesp, Jack4576, and AfD

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

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

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

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

One of those people is @Necrothesp:. I have seen them repeatedly encourage less experienced editors to ignore policy and guidelines at AfD, usually more covertly, but in this case overtly. In this case @Jack4576: decided to delete based on a lack of sources, [346], but Necrothesp told them to ignore policy and guidelines,[347] and Jack followed their advice and changed their vote,[348].

Necrothesp (an Admin) encouraging editors to ignore notability guidelines and policies at AfD is a problem and the above diffs show they have contributed to the situation with Jack4576. If we expect inexperienced editors to learn and respect notability guidelines and policy for AfD participation, Admins need to follow this and encourage editors to learn, not ignore guidelines and policies.  // Timothy :: talk  03:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like someone is upset because Necrothesp happens to have an opinion and expressed it. --Rschen7754 03:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Outageous. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Admins to telling others to ignore notability policy and guidelines at AfD is not an opinion. It is disruptive editing and Jack is about to be banned from AfD for doing it.  // Timothy :: talk  03:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

So in other words, you must agree with the party line or you get censored and topic banned from AFD? Rschen7754 03:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:WP:IAR is a policy. It is in fact, one of WP's longest standing, and most important policies

You may not like that, it may be inconvenient to any legalistic approach to AfD that you might possibly prefer; but it is an unequivocal fact

There are many reasons to support an explicit reliance of WP:IAR by Necrothesp, as occured here. (1) WP's policies are occasionally deficient, and there are good reasons they ought sometimes be ignored in line with community consensus, as stated in that policy; (2) explicit reliance on IAR is a preferable alternative to editors covertly engaging in motivated reasoning, and / or bad-faith attempts to shoehorn keep decisions into other policy buckets that are a less appropriate fit. Through the explicit statement of IAR as a reason, the guideline breach is made clear to the closer

None of the editors at the World's End AfD have engaged in policy breach, and there is no incident

This ANI is entirely inappropriate; and frankly, more than a little POINTY - Jack4576 (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ve been here off and on for >15 years and I’ve always thought WP:IAR was one of those “break-glass-in-case-of-emergency” provisions. I’ve never used it in all that time. When I’ve seen others use it, it’s usually turned out to have been a mistake, frequently messy and eventually reverted. You have been lucky it hasn’t blown up worse than this ANI kerfuffle; it helps that the stakes were low with marginal articles at AfD.

The WP:IAR button needs a label stating “may cause wiki drama”.

Good luck with any future use.

— A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: And to be absolutely clear: If admins are able to make IAR a valid reason to dismiss notability guidelines and policy, chaos will reign at AfD, anyone will be able to vote based on their opinions without any regard to Wikipedia standards.  // Timothy :: talk  03:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  This long-standing status quo has not caused 'chaos' to reign at AfD

  editors / admins are already allowed to do that, so long as the vote is made explicitly in reliance on the WP:IAR policy Jack4576 (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I disagree with the premise that I am "ignoring all policies and guidelines" at AfD. As can be seen from the above discussion, we are far from consensus on that issue. Coming to a different subjective opinion on SIGCOV evaluations is within guidelines. Perhaps infuriating for some, I'm sure. Jack4576 (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I found some references and put them on the article’s talk page — A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Mm. I think Jack's behavior has been poor, and said so uptopic. But while I also feel that the use of IAR in deletion discussions is almost always obnoxious, and almost always the recourse of the desperate who lack any legitimate grounds for their stance, as long as IAR remains an official policy, I can't agree that its invocation (or recommendations of its use) is a standalone ground for sanction. Ravenswing 04:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: If IAR is a legit position to take at AfD, this needs to be clear, because I am under the impression that IAR is not an excuse to bypass notability guidelines. If IAR is legit is the case I will withdraw this ANI, but it needs to be clear if IAR can be used to substitute opionion for guidelines at AfD. It will certainly eliminate the need to do BEFOREs if in an editors opinion it wouldn't show any sources. // Timothy :: talk  04:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  And I wasn't asking for a sanction against Necrothesp, I was hoping for a warning to head off what unleashing IAR would do to AfD.  // Timothy :: talk  04:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  A warning is still a sanction. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I felt at the time that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Miller (businessman) was open that Necrothesp's behaviour towards me was very unbecoming, particularly their insinuation that I have a "[p]ure lack of understanding of the real world"[349] because I argued that WP:GNG trumps WP:ANYBIO (which, to my understanding is an WP:SNG therefore is trumped by GNG) and that the sourcing for that BLP was very weak. They did not present any sources but rather attacked me (after some borderline sources were presented by other editors) for daring to nominate someone with Knighthood. I ended up withdrawing the nom due to the ad homs. If this is part of a pattern of similar behavior, which this invoking of IAR seems to be part of a pattern of disregard for notability guidelines, then I would certainly support sanctions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

He did not 'attack' you. Honest, fair, and polite criticism is not uncivil

While his comments toward you were civil, your reaction to it (both there and here) is overly sensitive

Frankly, to advocate for his sanction here based on something so tenuous; is crybully behaviour and ought be discouraged. It would be best if you withdrew your call for sanction against him here

(additional edit) I note also that in the same thread you described User:Necrothesp as having made "garbage comments"; far more uncivil than anything that was thrown in your direction. Jack4576 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)