Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    TurboSuperA+ closes

    TOPIC BAN IMPOSED
    By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, TurboSuperA+ is topic banned from closing discussions.


    There appears to be moderate consensus for this ban to be time-limited to six months; TurboSuperA+ is advised that upon the expiration of if and when they successfully appeal this ban, if they choose to close discussions then, that they focus on closing non-controversial RMs and such for a period to rebuild community trust.

    There have been suggestions for a blanket re-opening of the remaining discussions (if any) TurboSuperA+ closed that are still closed; I suggest that, given the amount of time that has elapsed, instead if desired new discussions be initiated in these cases without prejudice from the previous closures. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs) has closed several discussions recently, including ones on controversial topics (such as a close on Elon Musk's recent "gesture") or in areas where Turbo has limited experience (such as a CfD close, which Turbo called an "RfC" and then said I was being "semantic" when I pointed out that it was in fact a CfD), with one of them affecting a major aspect of policy (on the use of AI-generated images). Several editors have come to Turbo's talk page to complain about those closes, but Turbo has not really engaged with other editors' criticisms, instead claiming that those editors don't make sense and insisting that the closes are proper. Turbo has continued closing discussions notwithstanding several active (and some recently archived) discussions on their talk page criticizing their recent closes.

    Relevant closes / user talk discussions:

    • VPP RfC on AI-generated images / Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#Recent VP closure & Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#AI-generated imagery close
    • Prayagraj RfC / Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#Eh!
    • RfC on Elon Musk's gesture on the Nazi salute article / Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#Recent Nazi salute close
    • CfD close / Special:PermanentLink/1277954773#Feb 25 CfD closure

    I am hoping that Turbo will voluntarily stop closing discussions, but if a TBAN is needed, so be it. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Putting this at the top so that it can be seen. I have agreed not to close any more discussions and I have left a message on Voorts's Talk page asking that this matter be resolved without having someone read through the discussion, check all the links/diffs and make a decision. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another close here: Special:PermanentLink/1278007349#RFC: Tornado Talk. This one declares a source GUNREL but then, based on one editor's sort of incoherent comment, says that it shouldn't be listed at RSPS. More of Turbo's closes are listed here: Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 39. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to this thread because I was pinged by User:Cinderella157 about another RFC close: [1] at Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. I haven't looked at the closes in depth, but I think that an editor with 1200 edits would be wise to avoid closing RFCs about policy at VPP or about contentious topics. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by that close. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't questioning that close. I was reporting that I was requested to look at that close, and I saw a lot of other closes that were questioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody complained about the Tornado Talk close. I'm sure if you look at any close, you can find something to nitpick, nobody is perfect. Do you think the outcome of the Tornado Talk close was wrong? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The overall GUNREL outcome isn't necessarily wrong, but the closing statement is not an accurate summary and the "note" about not adding to RSP is based on a single comment, not consensus.
    Editors also pointed out that Tornado Talk doesn't seem to put much care when sourcing content, giving an example of several images taken from Wikipedia where the given attribution is "Wikipedia". While this could only pertain to images, editors were unable to investigate since at least some of the website's content is behind a paywall with archiving protections. This suggests you did not read the comments by WeatherWriter or me in the responses to my !vote, since we both linked to instances where the site sources written content from Wikipedia. And only one editor brought up issues with paywalls, which obviously wasn't shared by others. JoelleJay (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You !voted to classify Tornado Talk as GUNREL, so we're clear.
    "This suggests you did not read the comments by WeatherWriter or me"
    Except I did. In every discussion I have closed I have read every single comment. Your comment also said "Generally unreliable. This is an SPS, and none of the authors have PhDs in relevant areas."
    The first sentence of my close says: "Editors have noted that Tornado Talk is a self-published resource, that the authors published on the website do not have any relevant credentials".
    Again, I think if you look at any close you will find something was missed or left out or not perfectly written. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quoting While this could only pertain to images, editors were unable to investigate since at least some of the website's content is behind a paywall with archiving protections. This is patently untrue: two of us provided evidence that the Wikipedia citations extended to prose content, which was visible outside of the paywall. JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the "note" about not adding to RSP is based on a single comment, not consensus."
    "two of us provided evidence that the Wikipedia citations extended to prose content"
    I'd just like to say that this is valid criticism. It seems to me that a most of the complaints on the closes are not so much about the outcome, but that I left out or added something that shouldn't be there, like the examples above. These are simple edits to do and had someone said those to me on my Talk page before this ANI, I would have just done it, it's not a big deal. One complaint was on the actual outcome of the close and the editor could have started a review of it.
    But as I wrote to BugGhost, TBAN or not, I don't think I'll ever do another close. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to point out that none of my closes were brought to review before this ANI was started.
    "Several editors have come to Turbo's talk page to complain about those closes,"
    An involved editor who isn't happy the discussion wasn't closed their way. Is that how it works? Make a close, one editor complains, don't revert -> ANI?
    "Turbo has not really engaged with other editors' criticisms"
    That is a mischaracterisation, I engaged with all criticism. For example, I reverted this close[2], following this discussion[3]. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing contentious issues, while technically something that can be done by anybody, is generally best left to users with deep experience, if only because any such closes are likely to be overturned, wasting time. An account with hardly over 1k edits should not be closing such contentious issues, and it shows. This [4] close, for example, is plainly poorly articulated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. It's not that NAC closures aren't allowed but they are more likely to be contested, I think. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted that close, but I hope the review goes ahead. Because there are two complaints regarding that close: 1) there wasn't a consensus to ban medical-related AI-imagery, 2) there was a consensus to ban AI-generated images site wide. The two complaints are at odds with each other. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am entirely unimpressed by the way that TurboSuperA+ is responding here, with a mixture of stubbornness, belligerence, and evasion ("I stand by my close." - "Other closes are bad too." - "People didn't complain enough, so what's your problem?"), and demonstration of insufficient experience in both subject areas and closing procedures. Participating in high-senitivity mechanisms like centralized discussion closures requires first and foremost a constant awareness that you might be doing it wrong and a willingness to improve. I don't want to see anyone active there who treats it like a perk or a right that has to be defended. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Other closes are bad too." - "People didn't complain enough, so what's your problem?")
      Why did you put that in quotation marks when I never said those things?
      "I stand by my close."
      Rather than focus on word choice, can you tell me what's wrong with the close in question? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (If I was quoting you, you would be seeing talk-quote formatting - the above is paraphrasing.) My point is that when a discussion on a contentious issue is closed, I want to be able to depend on that close and the judgement behind it, not feel forced to dig through the entire discussion to double-check if the closer misinterpreted or misapplied something. Unless you are some kind of wunderkind, as a 3 month-old account you will not have the experience and judgement to reliable perform these closures. Multiple people have told you that, and expressed their preference that you develop a good deal more tenure on this site before you tangle in the area. Your response is to tell us, in as many words, that you personally like your closes (not suprising) and that other closes are not perfect either (duh). You are more interested in doing what you enjoy rather than in applying the expected caution and self-reflection that ensures that the project receives reliable service; and that is problematic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the above is paraphrasing."
    Not the first one. Also, adding "so what's your problem?" when I didn't say it is not fair, especially on an ANI topic, because it can bias people against me based on something I never actually said.
    "My point is that when a discussion on a contentious issue is closed, I want to be able to depend on that close and the judgement behind it, not feel forced to dig through the entire discussion to double-check if the closer misinterpreted or misapplied something."
    I reopened that RfC. If you look at the new close, the closer (an admin) also didn't give a summary of arguments. I am interested to see if @Voorts is happy with that close.
    "as a 3 month-old account you will not have the experience and judgement to reliable perform these closures"
    I don't think there is an account age requirement for closing. None of my closes went up for review (before this ANI), so how can you make the conclusion that they are bad/inadequate?
    "Multiple people have told you that"
    Rather than look at the existence of complaints, why haven't the complaints been evaluated? For example, on a close listed in the OP of this ANI thread[5] I received one complaint, but three public thanks. Another close[6] the complaint was from a participant in the discussion who argued for the opposite outcome of my close, they pinged[7] an editor, but they didn't come to my Talk page or start a close review.
    "You are more interested in doing what you enjoy rather than in applying the expected caution and self-reflection"
    That isn't true, because before this ANI was started, I had already reverted a close[8] following a discussion with an editor on my Talk page.[9]
    "Your response is to tell us, in as many words, that you personally like your closes"
    That's an unfair paraphrasing, because I have engaged with the arguments of every editor that mentions/responds to me. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy with Tamzin's close. Tamzin laid out what editors' arguments were, noted some areas of agreement and that the discussion needed more advertising across wiki, and then reopened it. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN unless Turbo voluntarily steps back for the time being. I really cannot understand why someone would voluntarily choose to close their first RfC on a highly contentious topic like Prayagraj (and then to quickly close several more discussions without heeding feedback, showing a clear disregard for other editors). Regardless, the incoherence of the Prayagraj close and subsequent discussions is unacceptable for discussion transparency; Turbo's clear unfamiliarity with which arguments should be considered stronger or weaker is also clearly shown at this close. As knowledge of strength of arguments is the essential foundation for any close, it is necessary for them to withdraw from closing until they gain sufficient experience. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "like Prayagraj"
      Three editors have thanked me for that close, while one complained (now two, including you). Why haven't any of my closes been brought up for review? There was ample time. I think it is unfair to lump together separate complaints from single, involved editors in an attempt to present a "problematic" pattern of behaviour.
      My responses have been civil and I tried to argue for my position. If there is disagreement, why not open a close review? Why jump to ANI and demand a TBAN as if my edits are disruptive or I'm vandalising RfCs? When all I did was clear the backlog on the WP:CR page because I saw no one else was doing it. Even now, an RfC I reopened a few days ago hasn't been closed yet.
      If any editor uninvolved in the RfC came to my Talk page and said "hey, I think I can close that RfC better" I would have reverted in a heartbeat. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The problems with your closes are present no matter who complains. People have jumped to ANI because you jumped to poorly closing several RfCs in the last few days; there is no point opening several close reviews when the common denominator is clear. Why is there a backlog at WP:CR? Because properly closing lengthy discussions is hard, and doing discussions justice requires serious thought. I'd recommend less impatience in your future endeavours. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "CfD close / Special:PermanentLink/1277954773#Feb 25 CfD closure"
    Why is this in the OP when I self-reverted that close two days ago (two days before this ANI)?[10] TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from IPA & PIA. These actions are clearly unacceptable WP:BADNAC. I agree with AirshipJungleman29, whether done in good or bad faith, one thing is clear: Turbo is inexperienced and not familiar with the policies. NXcrypto Message 12:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from closing anything. I think that at this point even a voluntary commitment to stop wouldn't be enough to avoid a TBAN - it'd be hard to lend it credence given the degree of refusal to accept criticism in the replies on their talk page and above, combined with the way they've aggressively sought out things to close despite their obvious inexperience. BADNAC point 1 says that a non-admin closure is inappropriate when The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial. Several of these either fall under contentious topics or are obviously controversial; the AI one in particular would have made even an experienced admin hesitate given the topic's history here. --Aquillion (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if we could avoid issuing a formal TBAN. Turbo, I know it's never pleasant to be told that you don't have enough experience to do something, but as a user with less than four months of experience, your best course of action is to listen to the various veteran editors in this thread who are urging you to get more experience before making further closes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we can avoid a TBAN if editor volunteers to stay away from closes for awhile until they have a better understanding. I'm not familiar with all the closes, but a few should be reviewed and reclosed by an editor who is more experienced. The no consensus close on the Nazi Salute RFC still doesn't make sense and the closer's responses showed a clear lack of basic understanding of policy. The result of that RFC doesn't really matter, but the close is still very poor. Nemov (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree that all the closes should be overturned. There's too many issues to tackle them one by one. Nemov (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "reclosed by an editor who is more experienced"
      But in the SPI investigation you started on me you said: "it's odd an editor that just started editing a few weeks ago seems so experienced."[TurboSuperA+ 1]
      I take that as a compliment, btw. :) Thank you. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      An editor disagreed with your assessment of the close and said no consensus might be appropriate[11] citing a previous RfC on the topic that also ended in no consensus. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Tban unless they overturn all of their closures and even after that, they need to clarify and make sure this will never happen in any future. But so far their responses have been entirely unimpressive. Mr.Hanes Talk 13:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Why did you revert my edit where I added @Garudam's signature to his comment restarting the RfC? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN. I closed a lot of discussions as a non-admin, including some consequential RfCs, so I don't buy into the line of argument that non-admins shouldn't close discussions just because they might be controversial or contested. That said, editors closing such discussions must show that they have a solid grasp of not just relevant policies and guidelines, but also norms of closing discussions. If you don't have those competences, your closes will always be suspect to the community. The issue here is not just the outcome of Turbo's closes, but their lack of understanding of relevant PAGs, their failure to adequately explain the reason for their close, and seeming super-votes. Turbo: I don't doubt you're acting in good faith here, but you just don't have the chops to be closing the kinds of discussions you're closing. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Also support overturning all of Turbo's closes so that we don't need to figure out which of them to bring to a close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      RE the proposals for 6 months, I think the TBAN should be indefinite. Turbo clearly doesn't understand what went wrong here and should have to come back to the community and show that they can be trusted closing discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The close you originally complained about was reverted. I said I won't close any more discussions.
      You ignore the fact that an editor disagrees with Nemov and says my close might be appropriate.
      Garuda complains about a close that otuer editors have thanked me for. So I don't think the cases are as clear cut as you try to present them.
      I also find it quite frustrating that rather than examine the merits of the two complaints or starting a close review, you think I should be sanctioned based on the mere existence of complaints. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Tban; dissatisfied with their reply [12], we don't need determine a good or bad NAC by your thanks log [13]. This really means nothing as all of 3 were heavily involved in the Prayagraj RfC and that too the "winning side".Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 15:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support minimum TBAN. This isn't new behavior from Turbo. This is an ongoing trend of refusal to listen, that has long since passed the point where it's become a competence to edit issue. It's not even an issue strictly limited to NAC anymore -- the sheer unwillingness to listen to anyone, the Dunning-Kruger issues with their understanding of policy, and the fightiness on every single issue indicates that we're likely just going to be here again in the future. A TBAN from any kind of discussion closure AND a TBAN from all CTOPS and GS areas is the absolute minimum here. IMO we should be asking whether this editor is ever going to be capable of participating on this project. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You need to back up your claims with diffs, particularly when suggesting such an extreme sanction as a ban from all CTOPs. In any event, maybe a TBAN from closing discussions will prompt Turbo to change their ways. Let's give people a chance before throwing the whole library at them. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't believe the claims I'm making are any different than those made by others here which are already well satisfied with diffs, as well as the existence of this very thread in which all of this behavior is demonstrated, to support my assertion that Turbo is unwilling to listen and lacks understanding of policy. Perhaps I just have a lower tolerance level for this behavior than some other admins do. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't reviewed their other edits. They might be making perfectly fine edits in mainspace and adequately participating in discussions, other than the ones they've closed. I wouldn't want to impose such a harsh sanction or consider whether someone shouldn't be here at all without more evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am disappointed in @Swatjester's response here. In a previous dispute we had I acquiesced to their demands a sign of good faith (something they didn't acknowledge, that should have given me a hint). It seems that even after I have shown that I am here in good faith and that I am willing to listen to others, I am still not given the slightest benefit of a doubt.
      It is not a very welcoming environment and I do not think my edits/behaviour justify the response seen in this thread. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from closures considering both their behavior here (continuously refusing to see a problem with their editing) and some interactions at WP:ITNC that lead me to believe they should gain some more experience around the project before delving into more sensitive/controversial areas and actions. The Kip (contribs) 19:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      At this point, weak support WP:CIR CBAN in the face of their ongoing refusal to accept criticism, as demonstrated below. Agree that at a minimum, past closures should be reopened. The Kip (contribs) 08:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic-Ban from all closures for six months. Part of the problem is the number of closures in contentious topic areas and on policy questions. It is not enough to close discussions correctly. It is also necessary to be seen as closing the discussions correctly. The closes in question were not brought to close review because no one of them had been seen as clearly wrong, although some of them were being discussed, but then the number of closes that required a very experienced editor (which Turbo is not) was seen as excessive. Also, although they did discuss their closures, they only addressed the closures individually, and sometimes but not always defensively, and did not address the issue of whether they were qualified to be making each closure or so many closures. This seems to be an editor who doesn't know that they aren't ready to make controversial closes. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support T-ban and overturn or re-open all of their problematic closures. That said we must not discourage any newcomer volunteers, because we need them to close the backlog gaps. AlvaKedak (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support t-ban at a minimum. The response to feedback is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Star Mississippi 02:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to pose that this is not only a closures related issue. See this archived discussion about an RfC that TurboSuper tried to open barely a week after there was a clear lack of a consensus to add the US into that infobox. They did withdraw the RfC eventually... but they didn't even follow WP:BEFORE for starting it, did not even begin to address the reasons for the opposition in the prior RfC, did not make any attempt to notify people who had participated in the prior discussion (or that talkpage that discussion was held on), and ultimately said It doesn't matter to me whether US is listed as an ally or a co-belligerent when opening the RfC - implying "as long as they're listed". I'm hesitant to call this intentional POV pushing - because it could just as easily be an over-eager editor. But I agree with others that there is a big issue of competence with respect to contentious topics - and with dropping the stick when something did not go their way (rather than trying to rehash the issue barely a week later). I don't think there's any precedent from a topic ban from all contentious topics... but I'd honestly really like to see a voluntary committment from the editor that they will spend time working on articles outside of contentious topics to become more experienced at discussing, accepting that consensus will not always be in their desired outcome, etc. before they return to contentious topics.
      Like others who have commented here, I do not see their responses here as giving any indication that they actually understand what they have been doing wrong, much less that they have any intent on trying to slow down. They first tried to defend their actions based on being right, and I see at best a cursory agreement that they don't mind their closes being reverted. That does not address the problem, much less show that the editor understands it. All of this considered... I do not think a topic ban from closing discussions goes far enough. If the editor is not willing to make a voluntary commitment to stay away from contentious topics until they are more experienced, in addition to either a voluntary or mandated ban from closing discussions, I would support indefinite block under competence is required. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For clarity, oppose a time limited topic ban from closing discussions. There is no harm in it being an indefinite ban, with the user required to demonstrate to the community that they understand how to edit and discuss in compliance with policies and guideline before they close another discussion in the future. That all said, I still believe this is not solely a problem with over-eager closing. There is a problem with this editor being able to contribute to contentious topics (especially) without trying to push their own POV into articles. That's evidenced by the situation I point out - they disagreed with an RfC outcome, so rather than accepting it and moving on, they tried to create a new RfC with a slightly different question, on a different page, to get their desired outcome. If a topic ban from any contentious topic is not in the question, then an indefinite ban on closing discussions will protect editors from having to deal with this in the future until they show they understand how to constructively contribute to contentious discussions on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to say any suggestion for a CIR indef is completely over the top and not required here. I also think that we can avoid a TBAN here if TurboSuperA+ goes on the record saying they won't close any discussions for a long time. We need people who are willing to close discussions, and making mistakes isn't a crime. Looking at the closes, personally I think these are just the hallmarks of someone who means well and is putting in effort to help, but lacks experience. However, closing discussions is not the right place to learn-through-mistakes - so really Turbo I'd urge you to take the criticism here seriously and publicly commit to not closing anything for a good long time (at least a couple of years) - I think this would be the only route for you avoiding a TBAN here. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      TBAN or not, I don't think I am closing another discussion ever again. I haven't closed any since people started complaining on my Talk page. I mean, sure I made some mistakes, but that could have been handled through a close review.
      Some editors are even calling for me to be blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. And for what? Did I vandalise pages? No. I genuinely tried to help.
      I'm gonna log off from Wikipedia for a while. Sorry for the trouble I caused. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the TBan that there's a clear consensus to impose, here, should be for a specific fixed period such as six months.—S Marshall T/C 10:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that the topic ban should be for six months, and have added for six months to my statement above. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support T-ban and overturn or re-open all of their closures. Their closure of this RfC is also problematic. Dympies (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @TurboSuperA+: Can you self-revert your cited closure on Talk:Kshatriya as well? Thanks. Dympies (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dympies, you started the RFC , what is problematic in the closure? Did TS not summarize it properly? @TurboSuperA+:, this closure was perfectly fine. There was nothing new being added and most comments were completely ignoring the opposing views. Well summarized by you as WP:NPOV.LukeEmily (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Tban, and please re-open all of their closures so we can save time from requesting a review. I have been waiting for their response [14], but it seems like they are determined to stick to their stance and don't want to heed others' suggestions. I don't want them to get Tban'd, but unfortunately, their WP:IDHT behavior has left us with no other way to handle this. – Garuda Talk! 15:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came here because i was following a discussion in Prayagraj where consensus was not likely for supporting the proposal. He did it anyway and now i found this discussion of him being topic banned. I request admins to please revert that close and undo the edit made by him in Prayagraj article. 2402:8100:29C4:8550:1AFB:3F2C:228B:8256 (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TBAN I think as they've said they are not going to do any more closures then we don't need to topic ban them. You need a large amount of experience to close some of the most contentious areas in the project - and I don't think a non-admin should have touched a lot of those. However I think they know that now. Secretlondon (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To make things easier for the person who has to read this thread.
    • For two of the mentioned closes in the OP (AI images and CfD close) I have reverted my close (CfD close was reverted two days before the ANI).
    • For the Elon Musk Nazi salute close, it seems that an editor disagrees with Nemov and thinks the close might be appropriate.
    • For the Prayagraj close I received one complaint from an involved editor.
    As I said, I'm not going to be doing any more closes, I don't want to go through this when someone disagrees with a close. But I think most of the closes I did so far are actually not controversial. Regarding the closes that are disputed, why not a close review? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact you keep attempting to defend yourself here after all this feedback makes me wonder if @Swatjester is correct about WP:CIR. In light of multiple editors pointing out your closes are consistently poor, why not rescind the closes and let another editor who is more experienced deal with it? If your closes are perfectly fine then a more experienced closer will find the same and do a better job of rationalizing it. Nemov (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I thought --- it won't take much time for them to overturn their closures and then assure everyone here that they won't be closing controversial RfCs anymore, at least not for now, with fewer than 1,000 edits. If they stop defending themselves and stop simply asking, "Why not a close review?" when their closure is already being questioned for being poorly executed, they might not face any sanctions at all. I don't think anyone would want to squander their time and energy --- and everyone else's --- reviewing their poor closures. We don't want WP:SNOW to keep getting invoked just to review their closures at this venue. – Garuda Talk! 21:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Why not a close review?" when their closure is already being questioned for being poorly executed,
    You should disclose you were a participant in the RfC and you disagree with the close. I don't think it's fair that you're trying to avoid the close review process (Again, why?) by claiming it is a waste of time when I think the reality is that you might be concerned the close could be endorsed, therefore an ANI is more sure-fire way of overturning a close you don't like/disagree with. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure I already addressed that in my first comment, as did Airship. Avoiding a bureaucratic discussion over your poor reviews is probably the best approach --- see above, where other users are also proposing to overturn all your closures. You're quick with presumptions, but unfortunately, your closures are far from being endorsed, especially since they've already been questioned here. – Garuda Talk! 12:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "where other users are also proposing to overturn all your closures."
    On what basis though? Why weren't any of the closes taken to AN for close review before this ANI? One participating editor who complains about the RfC close (x2) shouldn't be enough to take someone to ANI before a close review was carried out. One of the editors didn't actually complain about the outcome, but said it shouldn't have been "no consensus"; on the topic of that RfC another editor disagreed with Nemov, and thought that "no consensus" might be appropriate citing the close of an earlier RfC. I think that disagreement puts that particular complaint into question. The editor was welcome to start a close review. They had the time to start an SPI investigation and go through my edit history to find coinciding topic areas with another user, but didn't have time to make a close review.
    I apologise if this is too defensive but I can't help but feel attacked. An editor who has a problem with an RfC close I made "started an SPI investigation into me and then asks that I be banned on ANI, but hasn't initiated a close review. I don't think I have been given the assumption of good faith, but I have been immediately judged as either a sock puppet or a disruptive editor. Honestly, it really hurts.
    Strikethrough edit: The SPI investigation was started 5 days before he said something about the RfC on my Talk page. I just checked. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Garuda I have reverted my close. I hope this puts the matter to rest. I am tired of defending myself in this thread, it's pointless it seems. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ""In light of multiple editors pointing out your closes are consistently poor"
    An editor disagreed with your assessment of the Elon Musk close and said they think my close could be appropriate. I don't think it's fair to characterise it as "consistently poor" when that hasn't been shown at all.
    Rather than assess the complaints or the issues, you and others seem to think that the mere existence of complaints is enough for a ban.
    I'm sorry, but that's a bit Kafkaesque. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding this concern. I don’t treat CIR lightly, but that they’re still resorting to stubborn defensiveness in the face of significant criticism isn’t a great sign regarding their general attitude on the project. The Kip (contribs) 08:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the brighter side, they have reopened and essentially stepped out from their recent closures, and they won't be closing any RfCs for now. So, I guess we might avoid a Tban, and maybe only a slightly lighter sanction should be imposed, considering their stubborn defensiveness. – Garuda Talk! 08:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to sign your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prayagraj&diff=prev&oldid=1278849059
    You have 22 replies on that RfC, and you have instructed other editors to participate. You should be careful as your actions might be interpreted as WP:BLUDGEON. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is more like a generic hatnote comment, which doesn't need to be signed. I don't know why you have linked this discussion here -- it's completely irrelevant. That was for a different context, so don't mistake it for WP:CANVASS. Where do you see EducatedRedneck being invited by me to participate in the discussion? You don't seem to understand, and now you're falsely accusing me of bludgeoning the process, uh. – Garuda Talk! 10:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is appropriate to sign your name as a matter of transparency, as you were both a participant in the RfC, you complained on my Talk page about the close, and you participated in this ANI in the hopes of reopening it. I don't think it is a good look not to sign your name after all that. But what do I know, I'm apparently the worst person to join this site. lmao TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to ping. I confirm the message on my talkpage was not about the RFC (which was closed at the time). My subsequent participation in the RFC was because because I saw this edit on my watchlist. I'm glad Turbo reverted their close, which did appear to be bad. I'll also note the {{unsigned}} template exists so folks like Turbo can add a signature if they feel it's appropriate. This is typically quicker and causes less strife than demanding another editor sign a particular post. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nemov had started a SPI process against me on 22 February 2024. I was not notified of this investigation. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, no one is obliged to notify a user under investigation for SPI. – Garuda Talk! 12:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's common courtesy, especially when Nemov linked the ANI at the SPI, saying "The way things are going, I suspect this won't be an issue much longer."[TurboSuperA+ 2]
    Do you think that's WP:CANVAS and WP:FORUMSHOP? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No to either of those, and it makes me raise my eyebrow a little that you'd consider it either. As for a lack of notification - it may be common courtesy, but it is not required, and I can think of reasons why it would be considered better not to (not saying they do or do not apply here, just that they exist). - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Tban at minimum The behaviour on display here, particularly the inability to take responsibility and accept wrongdoing, instead stubbornly insisting being right and deflecting is precisely what I have been seeing in another CT article, Russian invasion of Ukraine, where they have also been applying WP:TENDENTIOUS double standards, taking part in edit warring and violating policies like WP:DUE. I do not think this is an editor that should be closing discussions, and if they don't want to anyway after this, well let it serve as a reminder and appeal it if you gain the confidence of the community. --TylerBurden (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "particularly the inability to take responsibility and accept wrongdoing,"
      This is incorrect, as I have reverted my closes and accepted a self-imposed restriction from closing. Please stop trying to shoehorn other content disputes into this.
      "precisely what I have been seeing in another CT article"
      On that Talk page I have been editing collaboratively and in good faith, as others have recognised.
      "where they have also been applying WP:TENDENTIOUS double standards, taking part in edit warring and violating policies like WP:DUE"
      You haven't provided any diffs. Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I have asked you this before, but you removed my comment from your talk page. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have learned some things in the course of this ANI, it has been a very educational few days. Is it inappropriate to say I ran the gauntlet? Because it sure feels that way.
    First of all, I realised I was wrong. I acted stubbornly and this situation is all my fault. Among other things I learned that even though the outcome of a close might be correct, there are other things that require doing that I wasn't aware off. And yes, these things come with experience, I apologise for not acknowledging that sooner.
    Regarding the four closes in the OP, I think I have some context to share and I hope this isn't construed as combative or retaliatory. I am providing diffs and these are the facts as I see them, and I am open to being wrong.
    Airport CfD. I self-reverted that close following a discussion on my Talk page two days before this ANI Was started. I don't know why it is listed in the OP as an example against me.
    Prayagraj RfC.
    I think there's very good reason to doubt @Garuda's motivations, because they seem to be working hard to get the RfC to one outcome:
    • They made 21 out of the 88 comments on the RfC in question.
    • When the close didn't go their way, despite them being the only editor with a complaint against the close, they threatened the closer (which in this case happens to be me) with a TBAN unless they got their way.
    • 1 minute after I let them know I had reverted my close they removed a Template:Disrupted discussion from the RfC. They also did not sign their comment when they restarted the discussion 15 minutes after the close was reverted.
    • They seem very invested in the "tally" of votes in the RfC and update it, like after an editor commented. An editor whom, coincidentally, Garuda encouraged @EducatedRedneck to make edits to disputed content under RfC discussion and ANI consideration.
    • When I added a signature template to their comment on the RfC, @Mr.Hanes removed it and then proceeded to make a comment in support of Garudam's "side" in the RfC. When I mentioned the lack of signature to Garuda, @EducatedRedneck was quick to "confirm there was no WP:CANVASS" (as their edit summary says). All three of the mentioned editors voted for the same outcome of the RfC.
    This at the very least should cast doubt on why they're in this thread. Personally, I don't think they're here because they think that me receiving a TBAN will make Wikipedia better. I don't think they are going to be happy with the RfC close unless it is the result they want.
    Despite all this, I recognise that I should not have closed the discussion. A more experienced editor would have seen that the discussion was controversial, anticipated potential problems and stayed away. I also should have dropped it earlier and not allowed it to get this far. A lesson learned and a mistake I will certainly not repeat.
    Elon Musk nazi salute.
    • An editor disagreed with @Nemov's assessment of the close and suggested "no consensus" might be appropriate. I don't think the only next available course of action for Nemov was to take me to ANI. And then Nemov requested that the ANI be "promptly" closed only 3 days after it was started. It feels like trying to rush a process because on the face of it there seems to be a lot of legitimate support for a TBAN.
    • I wondered "why is Nemov advocating so hard against me?" I think Nemov's problem with me started when I commented on a close review where I voted to overturn the RfC close, Nemov said "I'm baffled by the arguments for overturning this close." in his comment on the close review where only mine and another editor's comments were in favour of overturning. He was so baffled in fact, that 37 minutes after making the comment, he initiated a sockpuppet investigation into me. I don't think it was a good faith SPI report.
    • SPI over a comment, ANI over a close that is only disputed by them. It is very hard to assume good faith here.
    AI image BLP. Not much to say here except that I admit I was fully in the wrong. I should have reverted it when @Voorts said something on my talk page. I shouldn't have disagreed. I guess it was a mix of stubborness and defensiveness; I should have stepped back and looked at the issue with fresh eyes. It is another lesson learned.
    Various.
    @Dympies, who voted that I be TBAN-ed, asked me to overturn an RfC close. Another editor pointed out that Dympies started that RfC and that my close was in fact appropriate. I think that should put into question that editor's motivations behind the vote in this ANI discussion. Do they think a TBAN on me will make Wikipedia better or do they just disagree with my close? If the latter, then there are avenues other than asking I be sanctioned right off the bat.
    Conclusion. That is it from me. I think I have said everything that I possibly could have and I have said I will stay away from closing discussions. This ANI was an eye-opening experience for me in more ways than one. I thank everyone who participated in good faith. I apologise for the length of this post and whoever made it this far I doubly thank you. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding again because I was pinged. Yes, I was quick to respond, because I was pinged. And I was pinged, and thus drawn to this discussion, because you accused Garuda of canvassing me. My participation here is not of Garuda's doing, except insofar as they were notifying me that you had brought me up in the discussion. In short, I'm here because you brought me up. If there's a conspiracy, nobody told me about it.
    Consider that there's no cabal of editors out to defend their side, but a bunch of unrelated editors who saw that you made a bad close, said or perhaps !voted so, and sought sanction to prevent further damage. I can't see you collaborating with your fellow editors if you tend to see enemies instead of attempts to help you improve. (c.f., I thank everyone who participated in good faith., emphasis mine.) I would be happy if you proved me wrong, collaborated well, and took the advice of editors (ones far more experienced than you or me) as an attempt to lift everyone up, not pull you down. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ TurboSuperA+, your closure was not correct on Talk:Kshatriya, but it was a mere super vote. Yes you deserve a topic ban or a bigger sanction because you still don't understand where you are wrong. Dympies (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly suggest that you read about the laws of holes. The Kip (contribs) 06:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can an uninvolved admin please close this. There seems to be consensus for a TBAN, and they've said they won't close any discussions anyway - this has gone on for a week. The dogpile on Turbo has led to them feeling the need to re-explain their actions which is now furthering this dogpile and backing them into a corner, where they are digging themselves more holes, solely because this discussion has not been closed and put to bed yet. This is generating more heat than light. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please. I don't understand why this is still open. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax#c-Nemov-20250224044100-Pbritti-20250224030900
    2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax#c-Nemov-20250228132500-Pbritti-20250226163900
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal: Big Thumpus is limited to article space

    SITE BANNED
    By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, Big Thumpus is banned from en.wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As a result of an ANI thread, Big_Thumpus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic banned from AP2. BT has continued to skirt that ban (User_talk:Big_Thumpus#Topic_banned_from_Post-1992_American_politics_(AP2)_and_current_events) despite warnings from @Rosguill: User_talk:Big_Thumpus#Topic_ban_violation. They claim they want to be no part of the community, which is their right, but their subsequent conduct is unproductive and blockable per their T-Ban. Therefore, I propose that BT is limited to editing articles and article talks outside of their topic ban and nowhere else on the project. I propose that in lieu of a project space block since I'm not positive the disruption won't move to user talks, which it did this weekend. This way BT can show they're able to edit productively and eventually have their restrictions limited while limiting further disruption. If they don't wish to edit article space, that's also fine. Courtesy ping Femke as closer of prior thread. Star Mississippi 02:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is plainly retaliatory and poor behavior for an administrator. I expect absolutely zero fairness from The Community at this point. I have not received the assumption of good faith required by policy from the moment I began editing.
    Discussing how another editor was being treated, on their own talk page, has absolutely nothing to do with American politics. Pointing that out feels absurd. Just as absurd as editors who spend a great deal of time at ANI trying to get me banned from it.
    I fully expect that same group of editors to pile into this thread. Congratulations - you all get your way, every time. This is a dirty way to run an encyclopedia and I think many of you actually know that, deep in your hearts. Big Thumpus (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what is being said..... is are you here to help facilitate knowledge for our readers or just chat? Moxy🍁 02:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already stated publicly that I am no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia because of the treatment I have received here. This retaliatory ANI thread is just another example of why I have zero confidence in the administrative system. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not retaliatory. You said you were no longer interested, yet have continued to use User Talk spaces and not in a productive manner. Wikipedia is for improving content, it is not a place to chat if you have no interest in communicatingcontributing. Star Mississippi 03:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I have edited a grand total of 2 talk pages - my own and Lincoln's. I'm free to briefly pause my self imposed break from editing to reach out to someone who I feel is being treated unfairly by the community, am I not? Talk pages all over Wikipedia, indeed probably even your own, contain a broad range of casual conversation. I don't believe what you're referencing should be held to a different standard. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia So what I am hearing is that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors with a topic ban will naturally be treated to a different standard than editors without one since editors with a topic ban need to abide by their topic ban. If I had an AP topic ban there's maybe 5-10 edits of my last 100 that would be okay. I would not be posting in this thread, I would not have posted on your talk page. I wouldn't even have give the two CTOP alerts I gave for the Arab-Israel conflict since while this is a different CTOP area the article editing that gave rise to my CTOP alerts were definitely American politics related. Heck I would not even have commented in the ANI thread to give a simple reminder that ARBECR applied due to the A-I focus so maybe someone might want to deal with that. If it had been a few days and no one had said anything about ARBECR I might have approached some administrator involved explaining my concern and why I didn't say anything but that would be my one post. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BT, you know I argued against your original sanction so please listen to what I'm saying. Violating the sanction, even if for arguments sake we accept it was wrong, is counterproductive. It's going to convince those who supported it that they were right and didn't go far enough. Violating a sanction is like violating a court order. Perhaps a higher court will tell the lower court that the original order was wrong. However, they are going to expect that you follow the lower order until such time as it is overturned. In this case editors don't have to say the original sanction was just. Instead, they can say you can't follow the rules by pointing to your violations of your sanctions. No AP2 talk means nothing (absent an appeal or clarification) on any part of Wikipedia. Nothing on AP2 articles. Nothing AP2 on articles that are otherwise not AP2 content (say an article about Disney). Nothing about AP2 related topics on user talk pages. That includes talking to others about complaints they might have related to AP2 issues. I would suggest you either state (and mean it) that you understand the restriction and stop defending any violations, stop accusing others of trying to get you, and go off and edit articles that are no where near AP2 or close shop. I don't see any other way to avoid a site ban, if that's even possible now, and the shop will be closed for you. Springee (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully but very strongly disagree with the concept that my comment in Lincoln's ANI thread had anything at all to do with post-1992 American Politics, and therefore violated any sanction. That thread was explicitly about the conduct of another user - who even in this very thread admits that their behavior was perhaps inappropriate.
    And I don't think this is some coordinated effort to get me specifically - it's just human beings acting within a system that currently incentivizes unequal standards in the application of policy within a certain topic area, because the unequal standards currently happen to align with their views. What I'm hoping people realize is that running a system that way works great for you until it doesn't; either you have actual fairness and neutrality where the rules are applied the same regardless of topic, or you create a system that inevitably ends up favoring the viewpoints of one persuasion over another. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, anyone with an AP topic ban who tried to comment in that thread would have been told to stop it because they had a topic ban. No one would care about their views. This isn't new or unusual. What's unusual is your inability to understand it as well as the area you're editing. Even when other editors test the limits of their topic ban, it's generally in article edits. One related area it does come up with is ARBECR, and in that case, everyone who tries to edit about the Arab-Israeli conflict even when discussing user behaviour related to the Arab-Israeli conflict but is not extended confirmed is told to stop it when someone realises be they pro-Palestine or pro-Israeli or anything else. Heck I think I've done it to editors from both sides myself despite very limited involvement. Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also since I'm now not on mobile so can easily find the diffs, this is what I'm saying would be inappropriate for me if I had a post-1992 American Politics topic ban [15] [16]. To be clear I don't just mean my follow up explanation. Even the basics of me giving a CTOP alert template for the Arab-Israeli conflict would not be appropriate. While these are different CTOP areas and are simple templates arbcom has authorised to be used to alert editors, and in general it would be fine for someone with a post-1992 American politics topic ban to give an Arab-Israeli conflict CTOP alert, since this comes about mostly due to editing in an area clearly within the post-1992 American politics, it's not something I should be doing if I had such a topic ban no matter that I didn't mention the precise edits involved or anything else. Not does it matter if my view points are generally in line with other editors, I would not expect special treatment and would fully expect to be called out for it if anyone noticed I'd done it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All I see from this user is constant aspersions and bad advice to a new user before and after that user was site banned. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just indef Big Thumpus already. We don't need any more half measures. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, after a very, very long discussion closed with the outcome of a topic ban, I think the discussion participants wanted to see if these sanctions would be sufficient. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support site ban I feel bad for BT, but they clearly don't have a positive outlook on working on this collaborative project anymore and refuse to accept any wrongdoing. Tarlby (t) (c) 23:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support site ban - BT has said that they're no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia. Let's grant them that wish. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You win, everyone! Wow, what a show - you got your way twice in a week! Man, if only it was this easy to gang up with your friends and literally delete the people in real life that you disagree with, huh? Wait I think we actually have laws out here about that kind of stuff... Oh well, lol!
    • You're bullies, plain and simple. The rules don't apply to you the same way that you apply them to others, and you couldn't care less because right now, it works in your favor. Either you don't understand how that system can inevitably be used against you in the future if the tides shift, or you don't care because for now, you have whatever feeling of power being bullies on Wikipedia gives you.
    • I would say that Wikipedia deserves better than this, but obviously the ~15 of you must accurately represent the 100,000+ regular editors on the English Wikipedia so everything is perfectly reasonable :)
    I mean, come on. Site banning someone indefinitely [forever] who already said they didn't want to be here because of the way they've been treated? Talk about vindictive. I sincerely hope that no one ever treats any of you this way online or in real life, it's such a failure of humanity. Big Thumpus (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the reasons why I suggested a temporary block for Lincoln2020 instead of a siteban was because of Big Thumpus's comments on their page. BT was clearly goading Lincoln2020 on, perhaps beyond where they would have gone on their own. If anything, instead of a TBan, BT ought to be sitebanned, with consideration to downgrading Lincoln2020 to a temporary, 2-week block. BT was clearly either trolling maliciously or meatpuppeting Lincoln2020. King Lobclaw (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes BT was goading Lincoln2020. But Lincoln2020 was community sanctioned. I would not reduce this without realization of the problem, indication it will end, and acceptance by the community. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the unblock requests Lincoln2020 has made, reducing the block to 2 weeks would not solve the problem. Lincoln2020 is still claiming his block is a conspiracy to shut him up. He has gone so far as to request that arbcom get involved in the second request. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, another participant from the other ban thread - right on time, welcome back. Calling for the indefinite site banning of someone who has only edited their own talk page and the talk page of one other user since being topic banned is ridiculous. The encyclopedia is not suffering some great agony because of my existence, and if my discussion with an editor on their talk page bothers you I recommend closing the tab.
    The Community [of editors who spend an incredible amount of time pushing for bans at ANI against editors they perceive as politically disagreeable] just doesn't like me, I get it. You all probably think I'm some MAGA asshole because I dared to remove content that maligned Elon Musk, but you couldn't be more wrong. You have no idea who I am, but judging by the way I've been treated since day 1, you never cared to find out. Most, if not all, of you are guilty of WP:BITE, at the very least, but I fully expect my feelings about that to be immediately invalidated.
    And like I've already said - I expect absolutely zero actual consideration from The Community here. Liz is on Arb Com and clearly has taken a side (which is, of course, inappropriate for someone with those privileges and responsibilities - but hey, who cares!). Big Thumpus (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First, being on ARBCOM doesn't mean you can't have opinions. If I couldn't form opinions, I couldn't do my work as an administrator. Secondly I didn't participate in the previous ANI discussion about you so I'm not sure what side you think I'm on. My only remark to or about you, ever, is that I said on Lincoln2020's User talk page that I thought you were somewhat responsible for their indefinite block. This was because of your discussions on their User talk page which seemed to cause them to dig themselves into an even bigger hole instead of dropping the stick and moving on. But that was a comment about Lincoln2020's ban, not what might happen to you. And until now, I aside from a brief comment to Pppery, I haven't said anything in this discussion or what should happen. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but being on the Arbitration Committee means you've volunteered to be held to a higher standard of behavior than everyone else. It would look horrible for a court judge to go around openly maligning defendants in their conversations with prosecutors, for example. And I mean, it's not true at all that you haven't talked about me outside of Lincoln's talk page so do you want to correct your statement? Big Thumpus (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, on Star's User talk page I stated I advised them to drop the stick and move on and it looks like between them and Thumpus, they doubled down on their complaining and mischaracterizing the project. I mention your username. But I wasn't talking about your status on the project, I was talking about Lincoln's situation and have never weighed in on whether or not you should have a topic ban or be blocked. I mention that you two had a discussion that I didn't think was helpful. But, go ahead, search for other "Gotcha" moments. You seem absolutely convinced everyone is against you and so you seek out information to confirm that belief. As for your future on this project, I am uninvolved. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel like I nailed this one, honestly; the only change is that 11 out of just more than 200 is now 11 out of just more than 250 (oh and also you got an ideological ally blocked by giving incredibly dumb advice -- bravo). What happened to this, by the way? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blatantly uncivil, actual trolling that I'm sure will go completely overlooked. You win! Big Thumpus (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban BT is either using Lincoln2020 as a meat puppet or winding them up as some sort of troll. Either way, they're in the wrong. The hair-shirt victimization act isn't working. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I won't try to contend that my comportment on the Gulf of Mexico discussion was above reproach. I didn't live up to my own standards and have said as much to a few other people. I was upset about American politics, largely over expansionist threats made towards Canada, where I live, and was thus more emotionally involved in the material than is best. I try to do better most of the time and fully intend to redouble my efforts to keep my cool, avoid political spice and to continue to be guided by Wikipedia policy in my decision making. However, at this point, I have been made something of a spectacle first at WP:AN then at WP:ANI. All I want, at this point is for these two editors to leave me alone. I would have been content to say nothing at all if I had much faith that they would agree to leave this in the past and move on productively. However, based on some of their commentary, I am afraid they will continue pursuing this dispute. I am not asking for any specific sanction and, if they can agree to leave this dispute in the past I hope additional sanctions, beyond those the community has already placed, will be unnecessary.

    I do want to make it very clear that I canvassed nobody. I said my piece, said I would answer questions if needed and then went back to productive editing. I didn't enjoy seeing my own name pop up on my watchlist repeatedly over the last ten days and certainly did not want to inflame or extend this dispute that I sincerely want to leave behind. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support site ban read the talk page logs and Big Thumpus is clearly goading Lincoln on, though since they’re both relatively new users I’d say it’s more like tag-teaming mixed with incompetence and POV-warring as opposed to “experienced user leads newbie astray”. Lincoln is not in the right and can stay blocked indefinitely until they show genuine understanding of the rules. Dronebogus (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the restriction of Big Thumpus to article space. But before I offer an opinion on the Site Ban, I have a question. If User:Big Thumpus has stated: I've already stated publicly that I am no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia, what is their purpose in wanting to post to talk pages? If they are not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, known as being not here to contribute, what is their reason for wanting to post to talk pages? What do they want to do in that way? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not "want to do" anything specific on talk pages - I suspect SM's desire to bring me here to ban me from user talk pages and noticeboards stems from my use of Lincoln's talk page to voice my disapproval of his site ban.
      Frankly I'm disgusted and insulted by the way I've been treated here from the very beginning - that's why I stated my lack of interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. I sincerely have no confidence that I will be treated fairly. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't speak for Star Mississippi, who can speak for themselves, but the issue that I see is not that you disapproved of their site ban, but that you encouraged them to argue in the WP:ANI thread that resulted in their ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thumpus, if you don't want to contribute here anymore (as you said, plus with the fact only 11 of your 250 edits are to mainspace), nor do you plan on anything specific on talk pages, then what are you trying to do and why are you still here? Do you just plan on complaining until The Consensus™ reaches a decision? That's not what talk pages are for. Tarlby (t) (c) 04:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, my desire was to get you to be a productive editor. I think you can be, but tilting at windmills instead of writing content was heading towards a block. Lincoln egging you on to break your topic ban wasn't helping, but I had no ulterior motives with either of you. Star Mississippi 01:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Big Thumpus: Wikipedia is not a freeze peach platform. Edit constructively or go somewhere else. Dronebogus (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a ban outright, no hairsplitting about article-space. This clown car was unfunny a few weeks ago, and its running on fumes now. Zaathras (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a site ban, after considering the non-responsive response. It appears that Big Thumpus wants freedom of the press to criticize Wikipedia, but freedom of the press applies to those who own a press. The WMF owns the servers, and has delegated their control of the press to the ENWP community, not to individual malcontented editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support siteban. Their reaction to the topic-ban makes it clear that they haven't taken any of the issues that lead to it to heart and will, therefore, just keep doubling down; and their outright statement that they don't want to work on building an encyclopedia makes it seem like they're WP:NOTHERE. Beyond that, their reaction to the topic-ban and their interactions with other users since makes it clear that they're treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND (as, I think I said in the topic ban discussion, seemed like it was clearly their intent from the start) and show no sign of ceasing to do so. Their comments to Lincoln2020 in particular stand out because they come across as not just engaging in battlefield behavior but goading another editor into viewing it that way as well. A more narrow restriction doesn't make sense at this point - there's no real indication that the problem is confined to one area; and when someone would have that many restrictions layered on them it's time to consider a siteban anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban - BT's "you win everyone" post convinced me this editor will not or can not understand Wikipedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full site-ban - Using "free speech" to criticize Wikipedia only harms the development of the project. Yapping about the A-I area is detrimental to the neutrality of the topic. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not that it matters but I assume you mean AP2? I don't think Big Thumpus has involved themselves much with A-I. I did mention A-I above in the context of an example of how I would need to adjust my editing if I had an AP2 topic ban and also because it's probably the area where we're most commonly asking editors to stay out of administrative and conduct matter's given ARBECR. Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support restriction to article space. After looking through the discussions, I believe a site-ban is pretty overkill. They can be a good editor, if they just stop blasting talk pages. If the disruption continues regardless, then a site ban would be fairly appropriate. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban: In their own words, they are not interested in contributing to this project. That makes them WP:NOTHERE, so lets grant them their wish and formalise it with a site ban. TarnishedPathtalk 04:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Raoul mishima and Kelvintjy - slow edit warring and non-communicativeness

    This is an update on the issue raised [17] here previously. I tried to intervene at that time because Buddhism is something I have a lot of knowledge about. However things have not been going well. After the archiving of this thread the two editors continued their slow edit war at Soka School System [18][19][20] I then restored the article to its pre-edit war condition [21] and asked both of them to stop edit warring and come to article talk [22] [23]. I also created an article talk section [24]. However instead of talking to each other, each of these editors turned to argue to me about how the other one is the disruptive editor. They also continued editing without any prior discussion [25] - appears a reasonable inclusion but still no communication on it [26] - is a clear resumption of the edit war. I don't know how to get through to these two that they are both being highly disruptive by engaging in this slow-edit war, by engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality toward each other and by refusing to actually talk directly to each other about even basic edits. Honestly, at this point, I'd suggest that both should be topic banned from Japanese New Religious Movements. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look at the Talk Page of Soka School System, you will notice I tried to talk with @Kelvintjy many times, but he never answered. I'm not into edit warring, just trying to make this page more informative and less prommotionnal, and I'd like to do it with this user if he's ready for collaborating. I noticed this user has already been banned from at least one page last summer because of the same thing, reverting edits without using the talk page. Raoul mishima (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked you to stop the mass reversions and discuss at article talk and you just reverted to your preferred version anyway. Also you have made statements previously that indicate you may have multiple accounts. Could you please confirm whether this is your only Wikipedia account? Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Raoul meant Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, whose shortcut is "WP:SPA" (while socks are socks). Aaron Liu (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was that the way they put it seemed to intimate they were maintaining this account for a specific purpose which necessarily raises the question: do they maintain other accounts for similar purposes? I'm not the only one who has asked this question of Raoul mishima but they have never provided an answer when asked. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's usually not what SPA implies, but I would also appreciate an answer. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my only account today. And once again : I'm willing to collaborate with @Kelvintjy and any user. I reverted the Soka School System once again because the last revert by the other user was made without any discussion. @Aaron Liu do you know Kelvintjy or have you collaborated with him on WP pages ? Raoul mishima (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, just asking because on the Soka School System talk page today, he tagged you and other users "Daveler166, Daveler16,Augmented Seventh, Tacktician, Aaron Liu, QuotidianAl Kelvintjy (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)". Raoul mishima (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be a list of people who have opposed your edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It also seems they all belong to the Soka Gakkai... Btw is it your case ? Raoul mishima (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's another aspersion casted baselessly. Please stop assuming that all those who agree with you have a COI. And I've already answered long ago that I'm not. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Raoul mishima, it is inappropriate to ask editors about their religious affiliations so please do not make assumptions or do that again. And This is my only account today is ambiguous (what about accounts yesterday?), please list your previous accounts on your User page. Also, edit-warring is edit-warring, it doesn't matter what your reasons for doing it are unless you are removing vandalism or BLP violations which is not the case here. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Liz, Soka Gakkai is not a religion. It is an worldwide, powerful and wealthy organization, that created Japan's third political party. Being a member of this organization and editing pages related to it seems like a COI to me. Raoul mishima (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if your description is accurate that is out of keeping with Wikipedia policy. We allow members of the Republican party to edit about Donald Trump. We allow members of the LPC edit about Justin Trudeau. We allow scientologists to edit about scientology. You wanting to ban members of Soka Gakkai from editing about Soka Gakkai is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy and is, frankly, highly inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Raoul mishima, it's also inappropriate to ask an editor what political party they are affiliated with or where they work or any personal information that has not been self-disclosed. Editors are anonymous on Wikipedia and outing has gotten editors who have made many, many more contributions than you have made indefinitely blocked. It's a bright-line rule. Don't ask again. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: I found this whole fiasco after the recent deaths nomination of Daisaku Ikeda (and thus the splitting of the badly-sourced Honors section into List of awards and honours received by Daisaku Ikeda), and part of me wishes I didn't. Now, I take a look at that article, and it's now a great mess: among other frivolous changes such as removed the "International Honors" paragraph since there is an entire page dedicated to it., we have but has also been described as a cult by medias ("Soka Gakkai has many of the markings of a cult"[3]) and politicians (the French parliamentary commission in 1995) put at the end of the first lede paragraph. A few editors also objected to such language on the talk page when they were added in late November. Despite that, Raoul continued to revert to their preferred version multiple times, even ironically mentioning talk section tx once. And when Raoul finally responded, it was January 7, and Raoul had effectively waited out the other editors' interest in editing. Trying to find consensus with Raoul means dealing with their constant deflections, as you can see in the discussion Talk:Daisaku Ikeda#Philosopher ?. Raoul clearly has an axe to grind, and their contributions would take a considerable time to comb through. But what we can do is stop them from any more edits in their area of disruption.
    I also support a topic ban on Kelvin since it's clear he also has issues—both from the non-responses and interactions reported here and from the ANI thread in which he was partially blocked, including the COI concerns. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support a ban on Raoul mishima from pages related to Japanese new religious movements, because they appear to be a biased Wikipedia editor with an axe to grind against Daisaku Ikeda, Soka Gakkai, and anything related to them. It is important and necessary to provide an objective account of an influential historical figure like Daisaku Ikeda, but this is impossible if an editor is so biased against them. Nuanced and balanced Wikipedia pages are the need of the hour (something I have pointed to in the talk pages too), and I support anything that helps bring that about. QuotidianAl (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well @QuotidianAl I totally agree, but before my edits on the pages you mention, do you really think the content provided an objective account ? This is the Daisaku Ikeda page a year ago, do you really find it objective ? Same with the Soka Gakkai page a year ago, it just looks like an advertisment. Another question : do you think people belonging to the Soka Gakkai have no biased view and can provide a 100% objective content about it on WP ? Raoul mishima (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, days before you made any edits to this article, the article passed quality standards to be featured on the main page under the Recent deaths row, whose only substantial criteria is quality. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find more complaints in the talk page archives; see e.g. Talk:Daisaku Ikeda/Archive 4#Irresponsible Editing Without Prior Discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this means that you want me to be banned in more than 30 related articles that are related to Soka Gakkai or Daisaku Ikeda? Kelvintjy (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This will be my last answer @Kelvintjy : I want to collaborate,. If you don't, gfy. Raoul mishima (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but who asked you? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've explained to you here, in reply to your comment on an unrelated thread, pretty much yes, though that ban will be enforced by humans and not software. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look at Soka Gakkai International where Raoul mishima had removed a big chuck on information. He is trying bait me to go to edit war. If he is not stop, all article related to Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda will be edited purely by him and those who don't agree with him and are weak in providing a proper reasoning with him will get banned by Wikipedia moderator who will agree with him. This is what happened to me when I get topic banned in Soka Gakkai while the other editor is left the hook after he made the appeal as he know how to argue. Below are some the article he had made recent to mass edit according to his version
    Kelvintjy (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kelvintjy, what do you mean by those who don't agree with him and are weak in providing a proper reasoning with him will get banned by Wikipedia moderator who will agree with him. Do you have so little faith in our administrators (that's admins, not mods) that you think they will just side with an editor and impose bans on innocent editors for no good reason at all? That's a bad faith sentiment in our admin corps. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What I meant is that editors like us who are not very good in giving a good reason in the talk page.
      I was banned by Bbb23 from Soka Gakkai as I cannot explain properly. When I appeal against the ban, it was rejected by 331dot.
      Below are some of the past incidents involved me.
      Kelvintjy (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I can explain if you wish, or you can just have a look at the talk page of your own account.
      You were banned from that page because you were engaged in an edit war, against my edits and then again another users'. You kept reverting without any discussion. And the administrator noticed that you had been adding to many pages to the Soka Gakkai, primary sources, and irrelevant links. He concluded : "Kelvintjy does not generally discuss content but prefers to simply revert edits or manually roll things back without explanation. It should be noted that Kelvintjy is an SGI member." Raoul mishima (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you named the administrator whom you quote said about me? Kelvintjy (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not removed information but promotional content, it's way different. You have been using your WP account to add promotional/propaganda content to a lot of pages related or not to Soka Gakkai.
    The Soka Gakkai page itself, which you have heavily modified last summer. It was built by multiple editors which you rolled back on the 13th of August.
    "He is trying bait me to go to edit war" : not at all, and it looks like you need me to go on edit war : last August you were banned from a page for that reason, remember ?
    According to your list,
    Humanistic buddhism -> -539
    Lèse-majesté : -133
    Min-On : -958
    It's not "mass edit" or you have a problem with proportions. Raoul mishima (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You were partially blocked from Soka Gakkai (not WP:topic banned) because you kept rapidly reverting nearly all edits to that article. (Also, note that Raoul has never been blocked; Kelvintjy has confused Raoul for User:wound theology, who replaced their own block with the exact same voluntary WP:Restriction so that they could access the Wikipedia Library.) Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are slightly different problems here. In the case of Kelvintjy I think we have a WP:CIR issue caused by weak English skills. Kelvin regularly complains they feel out of their depth at article talk pages - that their words are twisted or they are unable to effectively counter statements made by interlocutors. This may be compounded by a WP:COI.
    Raoul mishima, meanwhile, seems motivated by some sort of WP:RGW desire to make articles more "neutral." However because they seem to have a personal animosity toward this specific new religious movement they don't exercise good discretion in their edits, frequently removing academic sources such as text book chapters because they feel these sources are overly promotional of the subject religion. They seem not to be aware that this is making the articles less neutral rather than more.
    This would be problem enough on its own to suggest neither of these editors should be working in this topic space. However this is made worse by the fact that both are committed to continuing this slow edit war. When they come to article talk, or this noticeboard, all they do is point fingers at each other. Neither editor shows any willingness to truly collaborate with the other. Rm calls Kelvin various aspersions regularly. Kelvin goes to article talk and all they say is that they intend to revert Rm's edits without any discussion of what should be kept or why. I think these two tangling is likely driving off other editors and is highly disruptive to the topic space. They have continued apace at Talk:Soka School System even after I filed this report. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 Kelvin reverted your edit on the School System page, I didn't. I stopped reverting and proposed to discuss on the talk page, as I've been doing for months, and I'm willing to make better pages that way, but it depends on Kelvin. Raoul mishima (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you did. In chronological order (earlier to latest): Simonm223 +1069 to the version after Folly Mox's edit on 16 June 2024, Kelvintjy +172 to add back a previous edit correcting a Singapore school's name, Raoul mishima -7944 back to their preferred version. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually asked you at article talk to discuss Kelvin's +172 edit and whether you felt it was appropriate. This, I thought, would be an easy way to get the two of you talking as the edit was a very basic factual correction. Instead you reverted the whole article to your preferred form and did not address the edit in question at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning that same School System page @Simonm223, how objective do you think it is now ? That version is the one Kelvin fought for, and I think it's highly problematic because it just looks like an advertising. Some paragraphs are laudatory, facts are unsourced, it's disappointing. It's not objective at all, and that is the issue. @Kelvintjy has constantly been manipulating / censoring the pages related to the organization he belongs to. @Wound theology noticed at least a dozen of incidents (see Aug. 16th 2024) before Kelvin was banned. Raoul mishima (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already said what I think - your cuts were indiscriminate and included the removal of reliable academic sources that you thought treated the new religious movement too favorably. Neither your nor Kelvin's preferred page is particularly neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the last comment here Kelvintjy has not edited but Raoul mishima has made another major edit to a Soka Gakkai related page, deleting reliable sources on the grounds that he doesn’t have access to the books to personally verify thwir contents. A book being offline is not grounds to treat it as unreliable. This is an ongoing problem that still needs resolving. [27] Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just that, when he cannot argue his case, he will just keep quiet for a few day to a few weeks before making the edits quietly. Kelvintjy (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to talk and argue with your on Talk pages for month @Kelvintjy... I just hope you're now ready to collaborate towards better, reliable and objective pages ! Raoul mishima (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that you are not willing to listen when all other editors tried to talk to you and you just went MIA for days. After that, you made your edit and disregard other people opinion. Kelvintjy (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look at the talk pages @Kelvintjy, it's amazing how you keep repeating I "disregard other people opinion" but never try to talk or collaborate. Raoul mishima (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ( Peanut gallery comment) I think that some attention should be drawn to this comment that Raoul mishima most recently made. Telling another editor to go fuck themselves hardly seems indicative of an actual willingness to collaborate or contribute constructively. Taffer😊 💬(she/they) 20:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a native English speaker, and as for me gfy stands for "good for you". Raoul mishima (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this English-language context, both expressions share the appearance of seeming dismissive and inflammatory. The reply immediately above (at 11:34, 27 Feb) seems trollish. As a non-native English user, User:Raoul mishima might take my comments as constructive criticism. BusterD (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Raoul mishima: if you think “go fuck yourself” can ever have a positive connotation when used in a semi-formal context with an acquaintance I don’t think you understand English well enough to edit English Wikipedia. Please stick to editing a Wikipedia edition in a language you are fluent in. Dronebogus (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they meant that they thought "gfy" stood for just "good for you". Aaron Liu (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is certainly what they wrote here and submitted under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GDFL. BusterD (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin attention needed

    Aaron Liu (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisting; this still needs admin assessment. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Soka School System for one week. If you folks want to argue, please do it in the appropriate place (on the talk page). So long as disruption continues, I can keep it protected as long as I like. That takes care of content issues for a bit. Sysops will now have time to examine behaviors. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank You very much! Is is also possible to fully protect all the articles that are related with Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda? Kelvintjy (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Full protection is considered an extreme solution to edit warring and is generally done for very limited time periods because it prevents all editors from working on an article. Rather than extend full protection to more and more articles, can we request editors to not edit war? Just because two editors don't get along doesn't mean all editors on the project should be prevented from editing a dozen articles. Understand the alternative to full protection is to block the editors involved in edit-warring. Liz Read! Talk! 16:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or perhaps a topic ban? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My full protection duration was overbold (and perhaps even a bit pointy). I believe I was trying to demonstrate the edit war was over, one way or the other, to everybody not just a few. I await some response from User:Raoul mishima before I reduce the duration (my choice isn't six hours old yet). This disagreement has been going on for much longer than one week, and if I'm in error, I'll accept my part. Further, my protection statement above specifically calls for other uninvolved administrators to evaluate to-date behaviors. BusterD (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, unprotect the article - or drop it to semi - and just pblock the two editors from it ... and personally I would make that block a month to give them plenty of time to hash the issue out on the TP. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I posed some very specific questions about the sourced statements that the edit war was over. I sincerely hope that they will respond to those. Simonm223 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BusterD, my comment wasn't directed to your full protection of this article but to the suggestion that we extend full protection to all of these other, related articles just because these two editors can't agree. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A major information is removed in Jōsei Toda by the Raoul mishima today. Kelvintjy (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It appears, based on the -18K edit mentioned above by Kelvintjy at 03:03, 5 March, the BOLD blanking behavior by User:Raoul mishima continues. So by my full protection, I have unfortunately not made the point sufficiently with that user. In order to keep the editor able to make a case, I'm going to temporarily block them from editing any live pagespace. I'm going to request User:Kelvintjy demonstrate patience given this discussion and not edit any of the affected page spaces for the same month. My change does have the positive side effect of my unprotecting Soka School System, since protection doesn't help solve the problem, which is looking behavioral. BusterD (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Noted. Thank You very much. I can really wait and be patience. Please revert back the article made by him in Jōsei Toda.
      In the meanwhile, can you also unblock me from editing Soka Gakkai page? Kelvintjy (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We have an unblock process, and I'm not going to intervene where other admins have already made good faith assessments. It is enough for me that you agree to restrain yourself from editing this page under discussion. Thank you. Please continue to act in good faith. BusterD (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, so this month could be the time to discuss about the pages @Kelvintjy.
      Before asking to revert back the changes about Jôsei Tôda, can you please look at the Talk page and begin a discussion ? Thanks very much. Raoul mishima (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Daveler166, Daveler16,Augmented Seventh, Tacktician, Aaron Liu, QuotidianAl, Ltdan43, BrandenburgG, Sandalwood33
      Can you all help in the Jôsei Tôda page article. I am not as well verse with all the technical part on the resources. My main strength is on the education and cultural part of Soka Gakkai. Kelvintjy (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have significant past association with Nichiren Shōshū of America that precludes my participation in any capacity save vandal patrol and occasional copy editing.
      I find the articles to be mostly accurate as written, the edit conflicts to be tiresome.
      have a wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      While in that edit there's a ton of problematic patterns of Raoul that have already been pointed out in other places, you are expected to say what is wrong with the edit in an edit summary or the talk page, even though the principle of the status quo means you can already revert massive changes made without consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment and attempted outing by User:CoalsCollective.

    Harassment in the form of repeated demands from CoalsCollective not to edit certain pages.[28] Veiled threats of attempted outing if I do not agree to this.[29]

    This situation began when I contacted User:Belbury for a third opinion on recent edits to the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie [30] and Society of Authors [31] pages. Belbury shared my concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and edited the pages.

    CoalsCollective reverted these edits several times against consensus, and when I commented on the Talk pages, told me not to edit the pages (at the time I had not yet done so), claiming that I had an unspecified COI around Joanne Harris).[32]

    Coals seems to have concluded that a comment I made on User talk: Belbury about my late father being bullied on Wiki as being about a discussion that happened on the Talk: Joanne Harris page 12 months ago. They also assumed that one of the editors involved in this discussion was my father. They asked me for confirmation of this, but I did not answer, as per WP:OUTING.Coals seemed to believe that I had accused them of something.

    I apologized for any distress caused and explained that I had no intention of suggesting that Coals was linked to the situation I had mentioned to Belbury. I also asked Coals to refrain from stating on the Talk pages of articles that I have a COI.[33] I assured Coals once again that I had no connection with any of the authors or organizations whose articles I had edited.

    Having lodged a COI case against me, then withdrawn it, then having submitted a COVRT e-mail and apparently withdrawn that too, Coals is still making the same claim of COI, including on article Talk pages. [34], as well as making references to certain unfortunate revelations they mean to draw attention to if I do not accept their WP:NOEDIT demands. I can only interpret these as threats of attempted WP:OUTING.[35]

    This has been going on for far too long, defying all attempts at talk, resolution or mediation via User Talk:Richard Yin [36]. I really would like an end to this WP:DRAMA: it's exhausting. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it might be relevant, the COIN discussion is here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 218#User:ArthurTheGardener. All of CoalsCollective's communication on User talk and Talk pages relies on the assumption that you have a COI. If you don't have a COI with these article subjects, then this is clear harrassment. But, ArthurTheGardener, I understand from this complaint that you state that you have no COI and their assumption is false, is that correct? I don't want to rehash the COIN discussion but this dispute and unwanted messages all seem to rely on the existence of a COI. Although, even if you did have a COI, some of these messages seem inappropriately personal. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Coals has made a lot of baseless assumptions about my motives for editing, my imagined feelings about my father and my supposed 'special interest' in Harris, but I have no relationship with Joanne Harris, or interest in her beyond her work. In spite of what Coals has said, the Joanne Harris page isn't even in my top 10 most edited pages. And yes, I'm troubled by the personal tone of a lot of these messages, and the implication that my editing has somehow been 'clouded by grief'. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth drawing attention to this comment on Belbury's talk as well. Also, since we're talking about it anyway, the WP:BEANS reason I closed the COIN thread was because I was worried it might escalate into an outing attempt. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That talk page comment is like a short story about anonymous editors that clearly ties together names and behavior in an unfortunately creative way, not based on evidence. It is all based on assumptions by Coals, reading into edits of the past and coming up with their own narrative of personal connections and individual motivations. I'd be interested in hearing from User:Belbury but I'm not sure how much he wants to get involved. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a strange comment and I still don't really understand what CoalsCollective was trying to say. They're assuming that I believe them to be a sockpuppet of NoorStores, and seem to be asking me to stop upsetting them and harassing them and making accusations against them on those grounds. But I've never said anything about NoorStores or sockpuppetry in relation to CoalsCollective's edits.
    No, it didn't take long for me to conclude that this dense and Twitter-sourced subsection was undue synthesis in the Rushdie article, and that a "recent controversies" heading merited a simple {{criticism section}} template. I did not have to read all 50,000 words of the sources and think for more than 15 minutes about that, as CoalsCollective suggests that I should have done. Belbury (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked into this here's what I'll say. There seems to be no question that FirstInAFieldOfOne (formerly known as Keyserzozie) had a conflict of interest with regards to Joanne Harris per User talk:FirstInAFieldOfOne#Possible conflict of interest and Talk:Joanne Harris as they were helping her set up pages on MySpace and maybe elsewhere and were in sufficient contact to obtain photos and other stuff. While FirstInAFieldOfOne considered themselves more of a fan than a friend, and says they were never paid, there was enough there that the community reasonably considered it a clear COI. With regards to ArthurTheGardener, if ArthurTheGardener does have some sort of close personal connection to FirstInAFieldOfOne then I think there's also enough there that they too have a COI with Joanne Harris even if they don't personally know Harris and never never been on contact with her. All this grief talk etc is unnecessary, a close personal connection to someone with a clear COI is enough that we can reasonable say the other editor has a COI too. Even if this is true, ArthurTheGardener doesn't need to acknowledge any connection to FirstInAFieldOfOne, however they should make an appropriate COI declaration or stop editing about Harris. I don't think it was wrong for CoalsCollective to mention something like this to ArthurTheGardener but the way they've word a lot of their comments it definitely not on coming across as threats rather than just a simple explanation of the situation. Also it's time for CoalsCollective to put up or shut up. If they have sufficient evidence of a COI or connection that relies solely on stuff these editors have voluntarily declared, they can open a COIN thread. I'd strongly suggest they think very carefully and ensure they're only relying on stuff voluntarily declared and if there's any doubt do not follow this route. If they're uncertain or need to rely on private evidence they can continue along COVRT. I'm sure the team there will direct them to COIN if they conclude it doesn't have to be private because everything was already voluntarily disclosed. Until and unless the community has accepted there is a COI, CoalsCollective needs to stop talking about it except on COIN. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My read on the situation is entirely different. CoalsCollective has been passive-aggressive in their interactions with Arthur to the point it is now harassment to keep on badgering Arthur about an imagined COI. The COIN thread was closed with no action, and CoalsCollective said they have written to WP:COIVRT to withdraw the case. CoalsCollective has no business telling Arthur what articles and/or talk pages they can and can't edit, and if they continue to make unfounded accusations of a COI against Arthur, I would support a block for CoalsCollective. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if what I said really disagrees with much of what you said except to emphasise different aspects. Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where I disagree with you is where you said - if ArthurTheGardener does have some sort of close personal connection to FirstInAFieldOfOne then I think there's also enough there that they too have a COI with Joanne Harris ... a close personal connection to someone with a clear COI is enough that we can reasonable say the other editor has a COI too. I disagree with the idea that you inherit a COI because you have a close personal connection to another editor who had a COI. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. I hope its helpful if I simply tell the story from my point of view. I was edting on the area of the Royal Society of Literature which has a crossover with the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie when I block of my editing was suddenly erased. I did not revert the edits, but I did, over several days, seek out the cause. This appeared to be a notice from Arthur to Belbury in which Arthur referenced his 'elderly father pootling about on Wikipedia' who had then been harassed by unpleasant editors and helped by Belbury. Looking at Arthur's profile, I could see his father had died in real life. From Belbury's reaction on wiki - 'I'll see what I can do' followed 10 minutes later by the removal of a large amount of my work- I inferred that I was being associated with the editor who had harassed this poor gentleman in the last year of his life. I was perturbed, as I believe is natural, and tried to do a little digging. This proved surprisingly easy: it seemed very clear, as @Nil EinneNil has confirmed, that Arthur's father was @FirstInAFieldOfOne,an editor who had for some years, in all innocence, acted as SPA for the writer Joanne Harris. When he was discovered, he was so distressed he invented sockpuppets. The entire event must have been very distressing for him and his son. I was very sorry for Arthur, but it was also clear, looking at his pages, that he had inherited his father's interest, devoting much of his time to creating book pages for Harris and to editing her page, and that Harris, a famous Chair of the Society of Authors, was the connection with my edits. I tried to speak tactfully about this to Arthur, but was rebuffed. Then I tried, very badly, to open a COIN investigation. At this point,@Richard Yin intervened and suggested a COIVRT investigation. I was happy to agree for the sake of Arthur's privacy. Unfortunately, Arthur didn't understand that there is a queue for COIVRT and continued to hound me and to say that the COI investigation had been 'closed ages ago'. I explained that was not the case. Then, with Richard Yin's consent, I closed the COIVRT investigation and will open a COIN one when I have time. The alternative, as I have repeatedly explained to Arthur, would be for him to simply avoid Joanne Harris pages.
    I don't see how there can be any question of OUTING. I have no information about Arthur. I objected, rather, to his INNING - to his bringing outside family relationships into his wikipedia editing. It really is very difficult to deal with and to strike the right tone as Isaidnoway is perhaps pointing out above - I really don't intend to be passive aggressive. . As for harassing, I can only say that all the interactions start with Arthur. I have only ever asked him to remember the very unfortunate personal connection that he brought to Wikipedia and COI that he himself declared. CoalsCollective (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But I have not declared a COI. And I have not given any details about my father, except that he used to be an editor here, once interacted with User:Belbury a year ago, and is now dead. And none of my edits reflect the claim that grief has affected my editing. In fact, this whole debate has never touched on my edits, but only on my right to edit, as determined by Coals. She has consistently attacked, not the edits, but the man. As I understand it, the principle of COI is to avoid off-wiki relationships inadvertently impacting on editing. But at the time Coals first asked me not to edit the Society of Authors or the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie pages, I hadn't edited either of them. So where was the justification for this? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Up above, Arthur says he told you he had no connection with any of the authors or organizations whose articles I had edited. Do you have any evidence that Arthur has an external relationship to Joanne Harris; do you have any evidence that Arthur has an external relationship with the Royal Society of Literature? Just because someone may have had a relative who had a COI, doesn't automatically mean that person inherits the same COI. What you seem to be saying is, for instance, if I had a relative who edited WP and declared a COI in a certain topic area, then I am forbidden from editing in that same topic area as well, just because I am related to them. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be determined on whether you announced that your relative was your relative IRL, wouldn't it, @Isaidnoway?
    That is the aspect that makes everything so difficult - that Arthur has declared that his late father was a wikipedia editor distressed by another editor. Thus Arthur's real bereavement, and Arthur's fathers real pain, are brought into this arena where we all working hard to be neutral and to leave our feelings outside. I really don't know how to deal with this, and probably, as you have thoughtfully pointed out, I am getting the tone wrong, using too many words, and seeming passive aggressive. None of this is my intention. CoalsCollective (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I disagree. So what if I announce I have a relative editing WP who has a COI with John Doe, that doesn't automatically mean I have the same COI with John Doe. You seem to be assuming that if my relative has an external relationship with John Doe, then I automatically have the same external relationship with John Doe, and I can't edit any articles related to John Doe. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Coals, it would be helpful if you stopped making these dramatic assumptions about how I feel, and concentrated on the editing situation, which is this. User:Belbury reverted some of your edits to the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie page - edits that you had worked hard on, but which contained WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and primary sources. You were upset that your hard work had been undone, intercepted a comment that was not directed to, or about you, and decided I was to blame. You then sought to stop me from commenting on the Talk page in order to give yourself the right to revert Belbury's edits. You did this more than once. You then claimed consensus on the basis that no other visitors to the page had commented. That isn't how consensus works. And until COI is declared, or decided by consensus, that's not how COI works, either.(see Talk: Stabbing of Salman Rushdie. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at that talk page for Rushdie, and it looked like to me Coals was just trying to get you out of the discussion altogether, as seen here in the following exchanges. And I would also point out to CoalsCollective, generally speaking, that editors with a COI are not forbidden from commenting on talk pages, unless that editor has a topic ban in place. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That really isn't my assumption, @Isaidnoway. Everyone has interests on wiki, and I wouldn't dream of telling you not to edit. ( I didn't tell Arthur not to edit either. I asked him to remember he had a case on COIVRT. He did.) My point is that Arthur has brought a personal interest into wiki. So not: 'my father John Doe also edits on the topic of Ronald Reagan', which would be fine, but ' my late father John Doe was harassed in the last year of his life on wikipedia by nasty editors editing on the topic of Ronald Reagan like that one over there' . That's not fine. Wikipedia just isn't set up for that and its very hard to handle. CoalsCollective (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's very easy to handle, comment on the contributions, not the contributor. As far as I can see, you have not pointed to a single edit by Arthur to any article that is problematic, you just keep droning on and on about the person. Please stop doing that. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Coals, I've already established through diffs, that you have asked me not to edit, and have done so repeatedly. A quick look at my archived Talk page will give more examples of this. But this denial is part of a pattern in which you have systematically refused to accept any criticism from anyone, and rejected all attempts to point out the problems in your edits, but have instead made personal attacks on the editors involved, including User:Richard Yin, who was trying to help you. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CoalsCollective, editors aren't expected to be robots and are allowed to share reasonable details of their personal lives on Wikipedia. If you aren't happy with what an editor is sharing with you, you can tell them to stop and they should, but this wasn't even something shared with you so there's zero reason for you to care about it. If an editor has voluntarily shared something onwiki, it's generally okay for another editor to bring it up when it's relevant to some discussion but you need to be sure it's relevant and not just something you're using to embarrass them or to try and win a dispute. Even if you think it's okay if an editor asks you to stop bring it up, you need to do that. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for further clarity, editors have shared that they are terminal and a variety of other situations which results in us feeling sympathy for them. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest that these editors aren't allow to share such details because their fellow editors are unable to handle the revelations. Most of us can. Yes we feel sympathy for these editors and okay if they show signs of stress etc, we might cut them more slack then we normally would. To be clear, this means we might let slide some poor behaviour and stuff like that. We don't let poor edits stand just because of sympathy for an editor's personal life nor take their sides in disputes just because of sympathy towards them. I mean we're all human so I guess it's impossible to say it has no influence but we do our best to put all that aside. A community where editors are forbidden from sharing anything about themselves because it might affect how editors deal with them isn't a place we want. (And considering how concerned you are about CoIs makes no sense even for you.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I see it, and as I have tried at length to communicate to CoalsCollective, their position is only tenable if three things are true:
    1. ArthurTheGardener has a COI with respect to the Society of Authors and related topics, to such a degree that it is difficult for him to edit neutrally.
    2. Belbury's actions on Feb 7 and afterward were partly or wholly motivated by sympathy toward ArthurTheGardener's circumstances.
    3. The resulting article changes were detrimental to the encyclopedia.
    Without commenting on claim #1, CoalsCollective has in my opinion failed so far to show that #2 and #3 are true. They don't seem to have tried very hard to support #3 by demonstrating that Belbury's changes were inappropriate, focusing rather on the claim that the edits were inappropriately motivated. As for claim #2, I concur with Liz when it comes to to assumptions and narratives about motivations. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to partly apologise for my original reply. When I looked into this above, I was mostly interested in what was public about this alleged COI, and what had come from the attempts to deal with it via the proper channels. I didn't look a great deal at anything else. I did see some comments from CoalsCollective that I found concerning which I sort of indicated in my original reply, but I decided to AGF that it was just a very poor attempt by CoalsCollective to explain that they felt ArthurTheGardener needed to either declare their CoI or stop editing and if they didn't declare it the community would likely find they did have a CoI anyway based on the available onwiki evidence. I had strong concerns CoalsCollective didn't actually have the onwiki evidence and misunderstood what they were allowed to share hence my strong caution about them reopening COIN.

    However it looked to me like the closure had been partly voluntary because it was feared the evidence wasn't all onwiki with the complaint being directed to COIVRT. I also assumed, perhaps incorrectly that when CoalsCollective asked for the COIVRT to be closed they explained that they planned to open a COIN thread and that whoever was involved would have reminded them about what they could and could not mention on wiki. Given all that, I felt it acceptable for CoalsCollective to open a new COIN thread provided they ensured they did not engage in any form of WP:OUTING but tried to emphasise that this was the only place it was acceptable for them to continue talk about a COI until and unless there had been a public finding of a CoI (whether via COIN or someone from COIVRT noting something onwiki).

    Having looked more now at CoalsCollective's actions I do agree it looks a lot like they've been trying to weaponise the COI allegation, while also making unsupported allegations about other editors who they don't claim have a CoI; in an effort to get their way in some article disputes. Frankly I've seen enough that I'm inclined to suggest not only does CoalsCollective need to stop all this but they should voluntarily stay away from all articles where this has been going on for a period. They also need to drop the COI stuff completely, not even open a new COIN thread. If anyone else sees something worth taking to COIN, they're welcome to do so. And even if there is community consensus that there is a COI, CoalCollective still needs to stay out of it, not talking about this COI or taking or suggesting any action because of it. And they definitely need to drop the part about grief etc, that's definitely not on whatever was shared before as I said even in my first reply it's irrelevant to anything.

    One more comment, I take a fairly expansive via of CoI and IMO it would be better if editors are more open about possible CoIs and more readily declare them. While it can create complexities in a largely pseudonymous world, there is always the option to refrain from editing and frankly there's also the option to just start a talk page discussion and say something like "for reasons I won't go into I'm not willing to edit the article directly but....." or something of that sort. To be clear, if I was editing an article about someone I knew a close family member was friends or close colleagues with, I would declare this as a CoI even if I personally had no connection to the person myself. It might not be the strongest CoI but enough of one that it's something I feel should be declared. It's apparent from the above and also a comment of that others disagree and this isn't the place to discuss it further, I'm only mentioning it to explain my comments above.

    Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that in principle this makes sense. However, the language Coals has used around some of the subjects of her edits ('controversial', 'contentious' [37] etc.) suggests that she herself may be finding it difficult to be objective. The edits I originally commented on all seemed to be attempts to give undue weight to social-media driven controversies and culture wars-related topics, drawing these into a narrative not supported by reliable sources. Since the creation of this account, Coals has made nearly all of her edits within a very narrow field - that of literary societies and a few of their prominent members. In such a case I don't know whether a voluntary topic ban would work. I know this isn't really the place to discuss COI, but this seems to me to be an account with a limited range of interests, and very strong opinions. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been editing for more than year on several topics related to my field of academic study, especially some author pages. I have never at any time edited any text whatever without citations from reliable sources at the highest level of relevance as you may see here. I am not a tendentious editor When corrected by other editors I have taken to respond as perhaps @Theroadislong might acknowledge.
    I have not harrassed anyone, nor attempted to out anyone, nor given the slightest indication that I would do so, and I would like to have some examples of when I am alleged to have done so. Arthur chose to pursue me, by his own statement, in order to pursue his late father's aims. I'm afraid that seems wrong to me.
    Arthur has WP:Aspersions and . All the interactions begin with him, I have only ever responded. I have never asked him not to edit. I simply asked him, as a matter of courtesy, to refrain from comment while his COIVRT case, convened as a matter of courtesy and kindness to him, was decided. His response was that it was 'closed ages ago' which was untrue.
    I decided to close the COIVRT because of this, and also because @Richard Yin had closed his email access. This seem inappropriate to me in the circumstances. I was clear and careful about what I was doing and invited Arthur to email for a more private discussion. CoalsCollective (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the ongoing discussion, I missed this, but I can't let it pass. Arthur chose to pursue me, by his own statement, in order to pursue his late father's aims. Excuse me, User:CoalsCollective. What evidence do you have for this claim? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In trying to consider how to resolve this complaint, I'd like to propose a voluntary IBan be adopted by CoalsCollective about the editor ArthurTheGardener. This is an interaction ban which, you can see at WP:IBAN, means no discussion with or about ArthurTheGardener, no editing pages right after they have done so, basically editing this project as if they aren't a fellow editor here and keeping your distance from them. It's clear that ArthurTheGardener wants nothing to do with CoalsCollective and wants to be left alone and CoalsCollective shouldn't be a COI investigator into other editors. There is so much more important editing that needs to be done here and I don't see an overriding reason why these two editors need to be in contact with each other. If there exist problems with CoalsCollective's edits, those can be discussed separately from this complaint.
    I'm suggesting this be voluntary because if CoalsCollective and ArthurTheGardener agree to adopt this resolution, then this complaint can be closed without involving additional editors and we can all move forward. And if CoalsCollective dislikes having an editing restiction, I'd remind them that I'm sure you came to Wikipedia to work on articles on subjects that interest you, not to investigate other editors and the existence or non-existence of their off-wikipedia relationships. If you want to be a constructive editor here, then consider "drama" to be a distraction from the actual work that goes into building an encyclopedia. It sounds like there is some tension between Coals and Belbury but that is about article editing which is the purpose of the project and can be discussed on article talk pages and which is governed by policies and guidelines, not sleuthing into personal relationships. How does this sound? Liz Read! Talk! 16:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never started any interaction with @ArthurTheGardener. All the interactions start with him. I'd be very happy to agree a mutual interaction ban and have already asked him for this. However, I also think that @ArthurTheGardener should stay away from the topic of Joanne Harris, simply because of the declared family connection. It would make everyone's life easier. CoalsCollective (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide a diff to support your assertion about a "declared family connection". Claims of this nature require evidence in the form of a diff. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    " Arthur
    we have @FirstInAFieldOfOne 'I also set up pages on some of my favourite books of hers when I opened this account in (I think) 2012. She didn't ask me to do it, nor did she ever send me any content (except for the photo that is now on the page, which I asked for, and which replaces an old one that she said she hated). I did ask her once if she'd mind my adapting some of the stuff on her website to improve some of the pages here, and she said yes, but any editing I've done has been off my own bat. I'm concerned that Noorstores has repeated on the COIN page and elsewhere that she "outed Harris" for "using a SPA", and has made other disparaging remarks about her. I'd like to restate once and for all that no one ever asked me to set up any pages No one has "used" me for anything. I once sold Joanne Harris a laptop, and set it up for her. Conversations between us have been limited to small talk: "Have you got any new books out?" and so on. I've added details on wiki as and when they've come my way, but that's all.
    These descriptions appeared to match for me, and Arthur has never disagreed. I find them poignant and would imagine that Arthur does too. This is why I think he should avoid Joanne Harris pages. CoalsCollective (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:ArthurTheGardener: ' I got interested in editing while caring for my elderly father, who died last year.' CoalsCollective (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't understand what you're trying to say. What does this conversation about Joanne Harris from a year ago have to do with a conversation I had with User:Belbury about The Stabbing of Salman Rushdie? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But the "declared family connection" does not say the family member is FirstInAFieldOfOne. Quite frankly, Arthur has been more patient and tolerant of your antics than I would have been. Why don't you just accept Liz's proposal of a voluntary I-ban, and get on with your editing, and stop suggesting and/or worrying about what topics Arthur can or cannot edit. There are gobs of other editors who can handle any potential issues that may or may not arise with Arthur. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really wish I could believe in this solution. But as you can see, Coals is using the same DARVO tactics as before, posting walls of text and making connections between unrelated situations. I have already provided evidence to back up my points. I have already stated that I have not declared a family connection. And even here, on this notice board, Coals is still making personal attacks in the form of accusations and repeating her demands for me not to edit. I have tried very hard to find a resolution. But nothing has worked. Coals refuses to take any responsibility for her actions, refuses any criticism and just keeps repeating the same accusations, whatever anyone tells her. And given her editing choices, and the fact that of her 457 edits since the creation of her account, 228 have been devoted to the drama of the past 30 days, [38], I wonder whether constructive editing is really her priority. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the information provided by CoalsCollective convinces me that ArthurTheGardener needs to avoid the topic of Joanne Harris article. If CoalsCollective won't simply accept the voluntary IBAN and get back to constructive editing, I think an involuntary IBAN is in order. Schazjmd (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not add a diff that opens up a previous edited to be reedited, CoalsCollective. The appropriate link would be User talk:Belbury#Advice, please?, not . But you made the assumption that FirstInAFieldOfOne was the editor that ArthurTheGardener was referring to and then you just ran with that assumption. I do NOT want you to go through your "evidence" that this assumption is or isn't true, that's what COIN thread is for. This is ANI and if you are willing to agree with it, I'd like you to accept a one way IBan with ArthurTheGardener and stop talking about them or telling them what pages they can or can not edit. If you don't agree, then I'll formulate a proposal and ask other editors to weigh in. But you have to drop this stick, stop hounding ArthurTheGardener and go back to regular editing. If a COI ever appears to be an issue, other editors can follow up on it. Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been regular editing. There is nothing at all wrong with the edits to the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie or the Society of Authors pages. They are very careful, very detailed, very balanced and very well cited. The only objection to them comes from Arthur. If Arthur wishes to deny to the connection to his father here then of course I will accept that and it involves no information outside of wiki. I can't accept a one way ban because of the problem that all the interactions are started by Arthur. You would then be allowing any amount of WP:ASPERSIONS WP:HOUND of me without a right to reply. No one has even looked at this problem, or my actual edits. CoalsCollective (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show me a single interaction with Arthur started by me?
    Or an example of a single edit which is not cited to a WP:REL WP:REL? CoalsCollective (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor have I ever told Arthur what he can and can't edit. I asked him to refrain, from kindness and courtesy, from commenting on pages while his case was being discussed at COIVRT. CoalsCollective (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, that assertion is directly contradicted by this diff, the first one offered in this section. Blocked indefinitely, where "indefinite" means "until discussion hashes out a lesser restriction that will prevent ongoing disruption". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:CoalsCollective, you are mistaken in believing that I am the only person who objects to your edits. The conversation on the Talk:Stabbing of Salman Rushdie page and the Talk:Society of Authors page show otherwise. You are also mistaken in believing that I have started all our interactions, as your many posts on my Talk pages show.[39][40] And no one is denying you the right to reply: simply the right to decide where other people edit. As I have already pointed out to you, a WP:NOEDIT order is a WP:NOEDIT order, whether or not you feel you asked politely, or otherwise. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reopening, as I specifically indicated that discussion should attempt to reach a lesser restriction than an indef block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize, SarekOfVulcan, I missed that request. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, your attempt to close this thread is showing up as gobbledygook wiki syntax at the top of this section, I was going to try and fix it, but thought you might want to give it a go. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not her fault, I nowiki-ed it so it would be clear that she had attempted to close the discussion, but that I had re-opened it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    To avoid people misunderstanding the broken {{atop}} and trying to fix it, I'm moving Liz's original closing statement below: --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Original closing statement: I guess this discussion has been rendered moot as SarekOfVulcan has indefinitely blocked CoalsCollective for disruptive editing. ArthurTheGardener, I'm sorry that you faced so many unwarranted personal comments about your family and life situation. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for one-way interaction ban

    CoalsCollective should be subject to a one-way interaction ban with ArthurTheGardener I have examined the discussions in multiple locations (user talk pages, noticeboards, article talk pages) and in particular CoalsCollective's comments. This wide-ranging furor all seems to come down to Belbury's removal of some of CC's edits and then CC misinterpreting a comment by ArthurTheGardener as an accusation that she is the editor that his father had an issue with. That misinterpretation drove CC to investigate and accuse ATG of COI in multiple locations, and repeatedly tried to get ATG to reveal the name that his father edited under. CC's edits prior to this misunderstanding that became a crusade are constructive and helpful to the project; she should be encouraged to refocus her efforts on article improvement. Schazjmd (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Long version with diffs

    I've gone through CoalsCollective's edit history. The issue appears to begin when ArthurTheGardener asks Belbury's advice about controversies added to two articles. Belbury said he'd look into it and removed some text that CC had written. CC joined the conversation on Belbury's talk page[41] and seems to have somehow read criticism of her into ATG's comment.
    CC posted on ATG's talk page to ask about COI and seems determined not to take "no" for an answer.[42] Despite ATG disavowing any COI with Harris, CC posts at Talk:Society of Authors: I suggest you refrain from commenting any further on issues to do with Joanne Harris or the Society of Authors as you seem to have a conflict of interest[43] (even though COI concerns do not preclude an editor from participating on the talk page, and even though ATG had already told CC that he had no COI).
    CC then opened a sockpuppet investigation accusing ATG of being a sock of FirstInAFieldOfOne, and a few hours later opened a discussion against ATG at COIN. The COIN discussion was closed by Richard Yin.
    Several comments CC has made indicate that at some point she inferred that she was the editor who ATG's father had had problems with,[44][45] and I can't find where that reading came from. (Related discussion on CC's talk page.)
    CC goes back to User talk:Belbury to criticize his conduct in the matter; this lengthy post makes clear that CC believes that she has been wrongly accused of upsetting ATG's father.[46] (I can find no evidence that any editor other than CC thinks that.) She then asks Richard Yin to look at what she wrote to Belbury.[47] (Richard Yin tries unsuccessfully to talk her down off the ledge.[48]])
    There's a whole COIVRT email bitUser_talk:CoalsCollective#WP:COIVRT_email_sent which CC then withdraws.
    As for "outing", CC made numerous comments in various places that attempted to make ATG acknowledge the name of his father's account, which ATG ignored.[49][50][51][52]

    Schazjmd (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Heads up @Schazjmd: you forgot to add the collapse bottom template. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, it was there, it just didn't get picked up for some reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, I stand corrected. There's a stray {{abot}} above, by the way. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You weren't seeing things, it wasn't showing up for me either, all the threads below were collapsed into it as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way interaction ban with ArthurTheGardener to stop the ongoing disruption. If Schazjmd's comment is not a formal proposal, then please consider my reply as a formal proposal. I also endorse Schazjmd's analysis of this unfortunate incident, particularly this passage – COI concerns do not preclude an editor from participating on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have written many words trying to convince CoalsCollective to focus on improving article content rather than making unsupported judgments about editor motivations. Perhaps I could've been more persuasive, but at this point I think a formal sanction is necessary. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support One-way interaction ban. I've been reading pages about this dispute for two days now and I just didn't understand this case, the lengths that CoalsCollective went to to bother ArthurTheGardener, down to starting up COIN cases about them, opening SPIs about them, letters to COIVRT, plus numerous, numerous talk page messages on several editor's pages for over a month. It finally sunk in that they hold him indirectly responsible for some work of theirs getting reverted all built upon assumptions about them. Such misplaced effort. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This seems a good solution, if Coals can be persuaded to accept it, and to take responsibility for her actions: so far she seems convinced that she has been the victim in all this. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This entire matter appears to be based on Coals' misinterpretation of COI. From the section above: If Arthur wishes to deny to the connection to his father confirms (to me at least) that Coals believes Arthur is editing on behalf of his deceased father, and that itself is somehow a conflict of interest. I will not speculate if this COI claim is simple misunderstanding, or a deliberate misuse in order to remove someone who disagrees with Coals' edits. Everything else spills out from that, the wild assumptions as to the Wiki identity of Arthur's father, etc. is all based on this one bit. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I don't think this is the only problem with CoalCollective's editing but it should prevent the current disruption. If it moves to other areas we can deal with it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've already voiced my support for an IBAN above, but then I followed up on a hunch and started an SPI. If my suspicion is correct then there is a chronic BLP issue here that one IBAN won't be enough to solve. --Richard Yin (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There were suspicions of this but I'm surprised to see the SPI. You clearly put a lot of work into this request for investigation. I'll be interested in hearing about the results. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have just finished going through this thread and the many links within it. I want to draw some attention to their their most recent comment that caused me some concern. In particular: My opinion is that Richard Lin and Belbury are probably sock puppets, but also that entering their psychodrama is degrading. seems entirely uncivil and doesn't indicate to me that an IBAN is sufficient. They don't seem to want to edit any more, so this might not matter, but it wouldn't be the first time that an editor changes their mind, so it might also be worth addressing CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 01:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with CambrianCrab; i had just visited the talk page and was concerned about the quote given above; so much so, in fact, that i considered removing it and replacing it with {{RPA}}, but decided against as the editor says they have finished with us, so perhaps the talk page will not get any further visibility. Nevertheless, in case it turns out that they decide to return and are able to put together a convincing unblock request, it is good we have taken notice of this, at the least, incivility ~ LindsayHello 12:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, retain Indefinite Block - Per CambrianCrab, the editor's most recent comment on their Talk page is just continuing to cast aspersions, even while blocked. I have no confidence Coals will abide by an IBAN, assuming she hasn't actually scrambled her password. I fully expect Coals will return with another account, and am disappointed the SPI was procedurally closed due to the current block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer to allow them to do some editing but this dispute has gone on so long that I'm becoming doubtful they could let this whole matter ebb away and return to productive editing. In my time on this project, it's unfortunate that I've repeatedly seen otherwise well-intentioned editor be blocked because of a "feud" that they couldn't let go of. Someone feels like the injured party and doesn't let go of it. But that's why we have IBans. They seem to have mixed results though. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ErrorCorrection1 and upcoming Canadian election, redux

    ErrorCorrection1 blocked, TPA removed. Nothing left to do here. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In a previous discussion, user ErrorCorrection1 was reported for edit warring and personal attacks on 2025 Canadian federal election and its talk page. ErrorCorrection1 had proposed to add text regarding media speculation about an early election call, and lashed out when their suggestion was widely rejected per WP:CRYSTAL. I asked for them to be banned from the topic, but the result of the thread was that they were partially blocked from the article only, with blocking admin Beeblebrox noting that any admin was free to unblock them once the date of the election is confirmed. The date is not confirmed, and won't be at least until Parliament reconvenes later this month.

    They waited a whole week before demanding to be unblocked (see User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 52#Time to end it) in a request with more personal attacks and a curious statement about not embarrassing Beeblebrox if the admin would not comply. They didn't.

    Another whole week later they tried the same thing again, this time at voorts' talk page. They again repeated their personal attacks and threatened the admin with embarrassment, and this time they earned a block. (By the way voorts, your talk page archive box doesn't seem to be picking up your Jan/Feb 2025 archive links)

    When that block expired, HouseBlaster restored the original page block, which led ErrorCorrection1 to complain on that talk page. This time they did not refer to GoodDay and myself by name, but still complained extensively about "2 editors who edit aggressively" and referring to our block logs (see Special:Permalink/1278475890#pblock and Special:Permalink/1278475890#Further guidance). HouseBlaster unblocked them on February 28.

    Meanwhile, a consensus developed by about January 30 for the material about the election date (Talk:2025 Canadian federal election#Lede's emphasis could be improved). On March 1, one day after their block being lifted, ErrorCorrection1 returned to the talk page and restarted the old thread, with the same previously rejected suggestion to speculate about the election date, and again sparring with GoodDay who objected. I thought since they had repeatedly committed to respect consensus in their many appeals that it might work to appeal to consensus, but instead they just told me I was wrong and then added what they wanted to the article anyway.

    Owing to the now-established history of ignoring consensus and the past month they spent personally attacking GoodDay and myself in their appeals, I am now requesting that they be banned from the topic of the 2025 Canadian federal election, and also banned from interacting with the two of us. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody's suggested sanctions for Ivanvector. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears I was too gentle. ErrorCorrection1, I advised you to drop the stick in my earlier conversations. You have shown a rigid mentality, insisting that others are being disruptive for disagreeing with you. I am going to say this in bold text: disagreeing with your opinion is not evidence of disruptive editing in any way, shape, or form. This battleground editing and edit warring is disruptive. WP:BATTLEGROUND editing is extremely harmful. Saying you understand the consensus process but utterly failing to put it into practice is also extremely harmful. I am not quite at "let's indefinite, sitewide block" yet, but the thought really crossed my mind. At a minimum, support the topic ban and one-way ibans.
      To the community: I tried to guide them on the right path, but I failed. My sincere apologies to the community that my unblock turned out to be misjudged and led to a greater time sink. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have ceased saying others are disruptive for any editorial opinion for at least several days and have ceased any kind of edit warring for 5 weeks but another editor continues to edit war. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A couple of days ago, you said

      The article talks about a scenario that happens about 20% of the time, but then adds that it's possible of the 80% scenario. I think it is better to say the 80% scenario but then add that it's possible of the 20% scenario. Though still in discussion, there is an editor who wants the 20% scenario first. That editor has been sanctioned by ArbCom and been blocked about 9 times in the past. That is in the record and not a personal attack. However, it might reflect combativeness. I hope that there is not combativeness anymore but we'll see. I might have to let them win.

      That sounds an awful lot like "they might be combative because they disagree with me". HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You said to not bring up the block record so I ceased doing that after your advice. Ivanvector wrote in the talk page to ignore that user's opinion.ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor's Response

    I am very sorry that Ivanvector is engaging in WP:BATTLEFIELD.

    Ivanvector is misleading ANI. For that, he/she should be blocked for a period of time. He/she notes: I asked for them to be banned from the topic, but the result of the thread was that they were partially blocked from the article only, with blocking admin Beeblebrox noting that any admin was free to unblock them once the date of the election is confirmed. The date is not confirmed, and won't be at least until Parliament reconvenes later this month.

    but this is very deceptive and asked for punishment on the basis of violation of terms. No, the conditions for p-unblock was

    or this user shows a willingness to respect consensus-based decision-making

    This condition was fulfilled after one month of discussion by me with two admins.

    See this diff, which represents the entire talk page discussion after Ivanvector commented and which he/she calls for my blocking...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2025_Canadian_federal_election&diff=1278673100&oldid=1278643066

    Specifically, note where Ivanvector writes "I'm making the edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)" I then SUPPORTED Ivanvector's unilateral edit but said, based on the lack of opposition after a month of talk page discussion, that the second sentence should have the 2 phrases of the sentence reversed. Another editor did not object and had no strong opinion. Based on that, any type of block is totally wrong. Instead, if there is a block, it should be against Ivanvector to call for a block based on that diff. Ivanvector is supposed to be an expert because he is an admin, yet to call on a block based on the diff, which represents the entire recent discussion is completely wrong. Anyone who is thinking of blocking me should discuss with me why this diff, which is the ENTIRETY of the talk page discussion should result in block. It should not.

    TLDR summary: Ivanvector wrongly calls for my block because of this edit.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Canadian_federal_election&diff=prev&oldid=1278647105

    despite the fact that the talk page discussion had one editor say either was ok and other editors did not object (except Ivanvector dismisses GoodDay's opinion as wanting nothing done until after the election). If Wikipedia blocks based on this not huge edit (reversing the order of 2 phrases in one sentence along with discussion in the talk page and no opposition until sudden ANI objection), something is really wrong.

    I support a two way IBAN on Ivanvector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErrorCorrection1 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I'll bite. ErrorCorrection1, why do you keep citing this one edit as the reason for this complaint when Ivanvector never mentioned it in their report? You are misrepresenting their complaint against you. You'd have more success here if you actually discussed the content that they said was problematic rather than inventing your own narrative.
    Also, FWIW, drop your allegations against Ivanvector, they may not be perfect (none of us are) but they are not going to be sanctioned in this complaint. No one but you has suggested that happen and it's clear that you are doing so as a defense against their complaint against you. It's distracting from the substance of their legitimate complaint against your battleground approach and no one is buying it. Work on explaining your own behavior and presenting an argument for why you are a net positive to this project. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very sorry that Ivanvector is engaging in WP:BATTLEFIELD is epic. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is indeed one word for it. Wow. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked ErrorCorrection1 until 21 October 2025, when the Canadian election will certainly be over. When HouseBlaster unblocked ErrorCorrection1, that adminstrator wrote "Any admin has my preemptive blessing to reimpose the block if there are further problems". The problems have continued, as can be seen in this ANI discussion. I have advised ErrorCorrection1 that when their block expires, they must be on their best behavior, because the next block may well be indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328:, did you mean to pblock them from the article or complete block from the site? Just checking because the previous block undone by HouseBlaster was a pblock. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bushranger, I meant to block them sitewide. In addition to the pageblock, they have previously been blocked sitewide for personal attacks and harassment, and their disruptive behavior has continued, and was not limited only to the election article. As HouseBlaster wrote above, I am not quite at "let's indefinite, sitewide block" yet, but the thought really crossed my mind. I did not block indefinitely. I blocked until this election is over. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All good, just thought I'd ask, since we all know about assuming. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the quick action here, but we've landed on another time-limited block. Even after that action they are still attacking me and blaming me specifically on their talk page, following a month of doing the same in every one of their block appeals (which also earned them a prior block). What of the iban that I suggested and has gained support above? Do I need to ask a third time in October? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, if they personally attack you on their talk page while blocked, I will revoke their talk page access. If they return to the same sort of disruption after their block expires in October, I will block them indefinitely. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: fine, I'll ping you in October. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I endorse removing TPA.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why ErrorCorrection1 didn't use the standard unblock request, but instead went to multiple administrators' talkpages to get unblocked, is something that bewilders me. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    He's still choosing to not use the standard unblock request. Either he doesn't want to or doesn't know how to. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cullen328 is still explaining things to them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still support the topic ban and one-way interaction bans for when they are unblocked. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to suggest when their block is over, they go into business because they could easily be hired as an (unsuccessful) WikiLawyer for blocked editors. Just a constant, "Show me where! Show me where!" Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Our relevant policy underlines that copyright infringement "should be treated seriously," as such cases "not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues". Consequently, persistent copyright violations by an editor indicate a general pattern of disruptive behavior and demonstrate that the editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.

    • Norfolkbigfish's copyright violation was detected by myself ([54]) and by AirshipJungleman29 ([55]) during the review of Crusading movement already in April 2022. As my linked remarks show, in a case Norfolkbigfish copied text from a book but verified it with a reference to another book, thus making the detection of copyright infringement very difficult.
    • During the FAC review of the same article in April 2024, I detected several cases of copyright violations, and opposed the article's promotion. In response, Norfolkbigfish took me to ANI proposing an IBAN. The case was closed without action and Norfolkbigfish sent me the following message: "Borsoka-I appreciate, as you say, the chance to clear the article, thank you for that. Will work through this from the top, line by line, and ping you when complete" on 9 April ([56]).
    • I opened a GAR, and emphasised the dangers of copyright infringement in the opening section on 8 April. On 10 April, Norfolkbigfish stated that "I am in the process of clearing the article of any remaining hint, although it apperas to be only fragments of sentences now." On 19 April, I closed the review and delisted the article, because it still contained several cases of copyvio ([57]). He again took me to ANI, stating that I "have a blind spot when it comes to working in a consensual way". During the process, Star Mississippi proposed a block of Norfolkbigfish "for on going copyright issues which remain an issue despite their ongoing promises", this proposal was supported by Serial Number 54129, but the process was closed without any formal decision.
    • The GAR was reopened on procedural basis (I am really stupid when procedural rules are to be followed). Norfolkbigfish proposed that the article should still be listed, stating that "all issues identified have been addressed" ([58]). On 26 April, I mentioned that Norfolkbigfish obviously did not take copyright violation seriously ([59]), and AirshipJungleman29 mentioned that they are "increasingly concerned about" Norfolkbigfish's "perception of the issue" ([60]). I returned to the review on 29 April, and still detected several cases of copyvio, including two cases when Norfolkbigfish copied text from books but verified them with a reference to other books. On this occasion, it was me who took Norfolkbigfish to ANI. During the process, Star Mississippi and Serial Number 54129 confirmed their previous indef block proposal, and it was supported by Ravenswing, but the case was again closed without any action.
    • A couple of days ago, Norfolkbigfish requested a peer review. They began to edit the article and their new edits again contain copyright infringement.

    I think the long history of repeated copyright infringement proves that Norfolkbigfish is not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked After reading the evidence, with multiple admins and experienced editors expressing concerns, I have indefinitely blocked Norfolkbigfish from mainspace, pending an explanation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Careless rather than intentional @Ritchie333, always clearly sourced (although subsequent editing may have moved the text from the cite) and quickly remediated when pointed out. Always happy to have my errors highlighted so I can fix, hence the current Peer Review and the many other reviews this article has been through. I was hoping that knowledgeable editors would join in and kick it along but it hasn't happened. Worth noting that the OP has been trying to get me banned for years. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't appear that Borsoka has being trying to get you banned, rather they have been trying to stop the encyclopedia containing copyright violations. Looking through the ANI threads, I see multiple call for a block, or for some sort of serious course correction to avoid copyright violations, with several people remaking that has been several years since it was first suggested. It's a standard procedure to block from mainspace when large amounts of copyvios are encountered, so editors can take a step back and evaluate the situation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Happy to evaluate the situation @Ritchie333, what do you suggest the next steps are? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You always seem to try to explain away copyright violation by saying things like that the content is uncontentious or that everything is sourced. Those things don't matter: copying phrases is still copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I know it is wrong @Phil Bridger, the point I was making was that there is no attempt to do this by subterfuge and that in future I will be more careful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      there is no attempt to do this by subterfuge
      Well, that's worse. It means you're intentionally doing this, which means you should never be editing Wikipedia t all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Something I note in going through the long slog in this matter is that you're just dandy at genial replies: you're "happy to evaluate," willing to fix, admitting fault, will be more careful, etc etc. And then you go and keep on making copyvios. This is a situation going back years, it keeps recurring, and it's very hard not to conclude that you're either incapable of or unwilling to change. Ravenswing 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Well politeness goes a long way and it is always good to engage with constructive editors @Ravenswing. Most of the sources on Crusading movement are available on Wayback machine so it is unlikely that any deliberate attempt to plagarise would remain unidentified for very long as the recent incident demonstrated. That said the root of that was the use of LLM/AI rather than the copying of sources. It didn't know the tools I was using would act this way, but do now and won't do that again should I get my editing rights back. See, I may be incapable, but I am not unwilling. The challenge is making the text close enough to the source that the OP doesn't flag verification failed, but far enough away that it isn't flagged copyvio. I forget the exact incident but on one occasion I had something like will of God flagged as close paraphrsaing. Now, I am not sure what to do about that. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you quickly remediate when pointed out? You took me ANI twice instead of fixing the problems. You have also failed to clear "your" other articles. For instance, I found two cases of obvious copyvio at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Angevin kings of England/1 after a very short review, and you have not edited that article for three months. By the way, when discussing the reassessment with an other editor I clearly stated that "Yes, I am close to take [Norfolkbigfish] to ANI but instead I give them (again) a last chance. I do not want to get rid of them, but to persuade them to start to improve WP instead of disrupting it with plagiarism, unverified statements and typos." This contradicts your statement about myself. Borsoka (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this entirely restricted to the Cruasding movement article or should we look at a potential CCI (possibly added to our backlog of cases to open because of the block) for all of their edits? Seeing Norfolkbigfish copied text from a book but verified it with a reference to another book has me inclined to presumptively remove all of their additions to Crusading movement. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I can learn something here. It is a good example. The OP writes Norfolkbigfish copied text from a book but verified it with a reference to another book. Now the sources (Asbridge, Jotiscky) are writing about different events 20 years apart. Asbridge and my edit were explicitly about Gregory VII, whereas Jotischky was talking about precursors to the First Crusade. Close but different. Now the line in question is In 1074, Gregory VII planned a display of military power to reinforce the principle of papal sovereignty. This pretty much matches Asbridge's meaning as I read it and is pretty straight forward in terms of wording. Jotischky writes A display of military might in the eastern Mediterranean, such as had been proposed by Gregory VII as early as 1074, would also bring the opportunity to reinforce the principle of papal sovereignty. So now we are talking about an overlap of 2 fragments and 10 words talking about subjects 20 years apart (ignoring names and dates that I presume arn't going to be called out). So clumsy I admit, but what could I have done differently, short of deploying a list of sysnoyms? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your above comment clearly demonstrates why you represented a constant risk for our community before your block. First of all, you try to present your blatant plagiarism as an issue between "the OP" and yourself. Several editors are cited above who have detected your plagiarism and informed you about the risks of such a behaviour several times. You have ignored all of us. Secondly, you should have read our basic policies about copyright violations and close paraphrasing soon after the first warnings because you should have understood and applied them. After several warnings by several editors, you cannot demand explanations on specific issues. By the way, your above text is a clear example of copyright violation. Borsoka (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you would like to answer the question, I attributed the statement to yourself because it was you who wrote it? I am genuinely interested in where the line between 4/6 word fragments, using general terms, about different but related topics is. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not general terms, but specific words describing a specific event (Gregory's 1074 plan) were copied without any change into the article without any reference to the copy and paste method. Sorry, I do not have time to continue this discussion, because there were nearly a hundred examples of close paraphrasing and copyvio in the article. (Not to mention your other GAs and FAs. They should also be examined, as I suggested you nearly a year ago, but as usual, you ignored my advice.) I wish you every success in real life. Borsoka (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the question again @Borsoka, you misunderstand. The two sources were writing about two different themes 20 years apart, one was was writing about Gregory, one was using it as simile for the upcoming First Crusade. Appreciate English is you second language so this may be difficult for you, but you could at least try to understand. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I do not misunderstand. We understand the texts in the same way. That is why you chose the same wording. Actually, we share some weaknesses: sometimes both of us need external support to write English sentences that make sense ([61]), and none of us is always able to understand unusual technical terms, in your case especially in the field of history ([62]) Please, do not ping me again. Borsoka (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just incredibly condescending, Norfolk. You should really stop digging. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    false complaint

    MaplesyrupSushi First, he tried to prove that I am a sockpuppet by asking if I am related to certain sockpuppet accounts.[[63]] I outright denied it, and he did not ask again, even though I asked him if he had any more doubts. I ignored the issue afterward, but now he is making false accusations against me without even notifying me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikh History78 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sikh History78 I don’t believe I have to notify you of sockpuppet investigations. I already presented my evidence on the sockpuppet investigation page, we’ll see how it turns out. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, let's see. I reviewed the evidence you provided, and the only evidence is that you stated I took some references from the same author that Jisshu used. This is the only evidence you provided, and it is totally baseless. If we consider that you also used references from Hari ram Gupta, Surjit Singh, Gandhi, and Ganda Singh, it means that you are a sockpuppet. Moreover,[[71]] if you already believed that I was a sockpuppet, why didn't you complain directly on February 23 instead of just asking me?[[72]] You are a very experienced editor, so you should know that asking someone on their talk page whether they are a sockpuppet is absolutely prohibited, especially in the case of a new user.[[73]] Sikh History78 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sikh History78 - Your editing patterns and behaviour are like Jisshu's, your prose sounds like AI-generated content. Same pattern of replacing sourced content in articles and replacing it with seemingly AI-generated summaries of content found in Gupta's works. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken and making baseless claims. I do not use AI-generated content, as I have already explained. Before editing an article, I practice in my sandbox or mobile notebook. Sikh History78 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't remove sourced content; please get your facts straight. I only rewrite articles that are stubs and need additional references while keeping the references that were already mentioned. Even when you asked me not to remove them in Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh, I agreed with you at that time. Sikh History78 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sikh History78 - Incorrect, you removed sources from articles in your recent edits. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please recheck instead of being biased. I just rewrote the stub articles. You mentioned removing a reference that I supposedly removed, but I never removed any references. Even if I had, I would have re-added them later. Since you accuse me of being biased, that claim is unfounded. I have written many articles in the past in which I mentioned the defeat of the Sikhs and their wrongdoings. I don't need to tell you that you, too, have repeatedly used references from Hari Ram Gupta and removed other references.[74][75] Doing so does not make you a sockpuppet. SouthAsia78 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I already mentioned that I use a sandbox as you do too. SouthAsia78 (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I had withdrawn this complaint. I don't know how it came back here; I was waiting for the SPI to be over. SouthAsia78 (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their actions here are perfectly normal; it's not uncommon to ask someone if they're a sock and then take things to SPI if the explanation is unsatisfactory or if they still suspect you're a sock. SPI, unlike other noticeboards, doesn't require notifying people because whether someone is a sock is usually cut-and-dried; you're either a sock or you're not, there's not much room for defenses the way there are with other behavioral issues. (Additionally, alerting repeat socks as to how they were caught makes it easier for them to evade in the future.) It's not fun being brought to SPI but if you're not a sock you can usually just ignore it; it will just be closed with no action. And even if it is, people are allowed to be wrong about socks to some extent - just taking someone to SPI and being told there's not enough evidence isn't harassing them; if we didn't have at least some leeway in that regard, it'd have a chilling effect on reporting potential socks. I would suggest just waiting for the SPI to close; if it is actually egregiously baseless (ie. to the point where a CU refuses to even run a check), then you can bring it here. But that's unlikely in this case; their explanations for why they think you're a sock seem at least reasonable at a glance, even if they may or may not be right. --Aquillion (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, I agree with you. I should wait until SPI is completed, and then I will complain about him again. Sikh History78 (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Note: Sikh History78 has been renamed to SouthAsia78. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that information, Tenryuu. Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bludgeoning, POV-pushing, personal attacks and incivility from M.Bitton

    M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s behaviour at the WP:NPOVN#Geography_map_dispute is what brought me here. I'll note that this user was warned about casting aspersions and reminded to be civil a couple of months ago.

    In terms of bludgeoning, M.Bitton's over 80 edits to the discussion yield plenty of repetitious arguments, such as "The US isn't the center of the universe" [76][77][78][79][80], or assertions about, or exhortations to read NPOV, without ever specifying what in NPOV is being referred to: [81] [82] [83][84] [85]

    There is also plenty of casting aspersions [86][87][88] [89] and just general rudeness: [90] [91] [92]

    M.Bitton is pushing a POV. The POV itself is not objectionable to me - I have no bones to pick with, for or against Western Sahara. However, when I wrote what I think was a gentle reproach on their talk page about the above behaviour, my comment was deleted and M.Bitton accused me of harassment on my talk page. When another user cautioned them about bludgeoning, they deleted that too with the edit summary: Thanks, but like I said, I won't let anyne get away with repeating false claims. M.Bitton also templated at least one other user in this dispute for "personal attacks" and then refused to specify (when asked) what the offence was.

    This kind of behaviour is incredibly off-putting, is part of a pattern, and hasn't abated since the user was warned about it recently. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note: this discussion with Samuelshraga leaves no doubt in my mind about the OP's intention with this hollow report. My response to their last comment in that discussion says it all.
    Samuelshraga, who thinks that As long as it's sourced, there is no WP:NPOV concern, clearly doesn't understand what NPOV stands for. We have an article about the policy that editors should read and understand, especially if they intend to "share their views" (assuming that's what their comment was, and not simply an attempt to undermine mine).
    I stand by what I said: I won't let anyone get away with repeating false claims about me and what I did (repeatedly correcting them is a byproduct of their repetition of the false claims). I'm not going to waste time addressing the rest, but if someone (other than the OP) wishes me to explain any of my comments, then I will happily do so (in context). M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Question: I asked repeatedly for you to explain the template message about personal attacks on my talk page, and on Talk:Geography. You responded "I will do so when this goes to ANI (which it will if you continue to cast aspersions)." What exactly was my personal attack? As I said, I am happy to strike anything I said that was a personal attack, or explain anything that I believe was misinterpreted. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the OP left this odd message on your talk page. No comment necessary.
    Your personal attacks include, but are not limited, to accusing me of being a POV pusher and, despite being reminded to comment on the content, you continued to do so deliberately and even insinuated that I have an agenda (after deciding all by yourself what "I like" and "don't like"). So my rhetorical question is rather simple: if the editor who is enforcing the NPOV policy is a POV pusher (according to you), then what does that make you? M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for finally telling me what lead to your accusations. I apologize if I was uncivil in discussion with you, and I do see where you're coming from in that choosing a source for a map showing international boundaries is going to be controversial. I particularly apologize for use of the word "agenda," as that can certainly have very negative connotations. I have struck through that part of my reply. My response about what you "like" was to your comment "You are yet to even try to give a valid reason for publishing something that is factually incorrect," to which I replied "It isn't factually incorrect, you just don't like it." My reason for publishing the new U.S. map was stated very early on in this years annual discussion on the topic, "Regardless of opinions on this, if the source for 2023 was legitimate then, and has changed the borders, we should use the updated map." I believe that your reason for blocking the updated version is your POV on the update and/or the person who made the decision to change the border. That's fair, that person makes me struggle with NPOV at times as well, but I try to approach changes to maps under him in the same way as a change to a map under any president.
    To elaborate on my argument that you are pushing a POV, based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, I do think you are pushing a POV, and that your argument is grounded in political views and trying to Right great wrongs. My view isn't just from the discussion this year, but built on an observed pattern I've seen since 2024. I believe you stated your own opinions as facts, and stated seriously contested assertions as facts. I don't believe you have a NPOV on this and are quite passionate about the Western Sahara issue for whatever reason. It is okay to have a strong opinion on a topic, but my opinion on updating the boundary has nothing to do with the reasons those boundaries were updated. Your accusations, word choice, and manner of arguing has made me believe you are not neutral on the issue of Western Sahara, with an interest in using the most accurate and up to date sources. I've generally felt belittled, and that there has been little assumption of good faith from you in addressing my reason for wanting an up to date map. Since stating it, that my opinion has grown. Your edits and comments on the talk page feel like strategies listed in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, including "Accusing others of malice," "Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources," "Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors," and "Righting great wrongs.""
    Some evidence of you stating your facts or seriously contested assertions as facts:
    • During our discussion on maps, you have declared the U.S map is inaccurate, and repeatedly stated it is inaccurate because "a whole country missing."
    • You have asserted that the derived map you created using 2016 boundaries is "more accurate" then the 2021 boundaries from the same source.
    • You have literally called U.S. government maps "inaccurate" because of their official stance on an issue, and asserted your preferred boundaries are "more accurate" (if the U.S. government is contesting something on it's official map, I think that is fair to call it "seriously contested.")
    • You stated: "What the US stands for is irrelevant to the fact that its view on WS is super fringe. That's an undisputed fact!" (if the U.S. government is contesting something on it's official map, I think that is fair to call it "seriously contested." I don't believe a countries official recognized borders are "fringe," much less one of the members of the U.N. security council.)
    Evidence of your accusations/word choice that make me think you're not neutral from this year:
    • You've accused me of trying to "impose Trump's POV because, according to you, the US is a superpower (to which we must bow)" on the discussion, after quoting my statement "The United States is a Superpower" 7 times in a way to dismiss me. This felt like a False narrative, and I said I never mentioned Trump, but stated:

    "The United States is a Superpower, which "are states so influential that no significant action can be taken by the global community without first considering the positions of the superpowers on the issue." The opinions of the US government in international politics are not "fringe." I read what you wrote, it doesn't change the US opinion, just that you think it was a better opinion in the past so we should not update maps to reflect changes to it."

    • You've accused me of wanting to "inject US politics into geography," when all I want is to use the most up to date set of boundaries that are in line with our source.
    • In a comment that you have since revised (although you ignored my request to strike through rather then delete it entirely), you called my opinion "irrelevant."
    • You've accused me of trying to publish inaccurate information.
    • You've accused me of casting aspirations.
    • You've accused me of bludgeoning. (In retrospect, this might be fair and I will work to improve. I tend to want to discuss and have a back and forth with people who disagree with me, and that is not the best approach I guess. However, you have commented more then me on those threads, so the accusation feels a bit "do as I say, not as I do.")
    • You templated me, but didn't explain it when asked, until now. This felt like a threat to get me to end discussion with you, and seemed to be
    • You stated "That's right, unlike those who, for reasons that reason cannot explain, have a very strong POV for non compliance with NPOV." when referring to others who disagree with you.
    Evidence of your accusations/word choice that make me think you're not neutral from last year:
    • You accused me of "trying to promote a fringe POV".
    • You accused me of "making baseless claims."
    Additionally:
    • Other editors have noted on the NPOV Noticeboard that this is not the only place you've been involved in heated discussions involving Western Sahara.
    • You've repeatedly turned conversations away from addressing how we handle other disputed borders and focused on Western Sahara. The 2016 map has multiple highly disputed borders. The insistence we only talk about Western Sahara when looking at alternative map options seems particularly odd to me.
    You've framed yourself as an arbiter of NPOV, but it does not appear to me that you are at all neutral on this topic. It is entirely possible I don't understand what it means to push a POV, but based on my understanding of the relevant essays and policy, it is my conclusion. Again, I apologize for not being as civil as I should/could be. On my talk page, you threatened to try and get me blocked from editing by reporting me, well here. That is never a fun thing to hear, and I don't appreciate that or the fact you refused to elaborate. That said, I don't want you banned, or punished, and definitely didn't want to end up commenting here. Just chill out a bit so we can pick a good version of the UN map or something historic to include and move on. I really just want to have some set of guideline so I don't have to have this discussion with anyone again, so I hope we can find a set of boundaries that are more universally accepted, from a source that we can take updates from without needing to think about the broader implications of the content within the update. Everyone basically agrees on the UN map, with some theoretical issues surrounding the "there is no neutral map" problem inherit in the traditional one map solution. This has been a multiyear tedious discussion on a page I care a lot about and have invested a lot of time in, over an issue I consider to be routine maintenance of figures, that I thought was resolved last year by swapping in a UN map. I started the conversation with my experience from last years discussion framing my view, which was not the best way to restart this conversation, and I've definitely replied to you a few times while frustrated, which is not the best. In the future will try to step away from the computer and shut the hell up for a bit and take my dog for a walk or grade papers. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've accused me of casting aspirations. you have (from the get go) and you are literally doubling down on them.
    I do think you are pushing a POV since you're the one who has been trying to impose a fringe view, then you fit perfectly the definition of the label that you're projecting onto me.
    I don't believe you have a NPOV that doesn't make any sense, and frankly, just reading it gives me a headache as it reminds me why I ended up correcting you (in vain) more times than I care to remember.
    I have no idea whether you really don't understand the NPOV policy or are simply pretending not to. Either way, the RfC will settle the dispute. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained my opinion, that you are pushing your POV on the international border, cited which parts of relevant policy/essays I believe apply, and presented what I believe to be evidence. I noted I might not understand the essays on POV, if I'm wrong then I'd likely need to have the policy explained. If that isn't adequate for you, then I don't think anything would be. I'm sorry if I've been uncivil or given you a headache. I'm trying to give benefit of the doubt regarding your tone on this and previous messages, but it is really hard. As said above, I don't want to see you penalized or punished, and definitely wouldn't have started this conversation here, but do wish you'd be less hostile to people. Regardless of POV, your tone consistently comes off as pretty aggressive and threatening in my opinion. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite your continued uncalled for personal attacks, I don't want to see you blocked (for reasons that I don't expect you to understand). M.Bitton (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait: I was the other user offering the feedback about approaching bludgeoning. Beyond a gentle trout whack, I do not recommend further action at this time. I or others will open an RfC soon on the NPOV issue in question and that will be a good opportunity for @M.Bitton to demonstrate discussion consistent with our community guidelines. I think there have been mitigating circumstances in the discussion so far among a limited number of editors. I think imprecise language has been misconstrued, I’m optimistic that the quality of the discussion will be improved. Dw31415 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dw31415, while I see @M.Bitton started litigating the map issue here, I'm reporting them here for their behaviour, which is part of a pattern that clearly extends well before this discussion. The future course of the map discussion won't address this. I'm not asking for anything dramatic, but a recognition from M.Bitton that the behaviour is problematic and an undertaking to do better would be something. Their response so far has been to accuse me of bad faith and undertake to continue the same behaviour, so I think something needs to change.
    Also, this report includes behaviours well beyond bludgeoning. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion sums you up. Please refrain from pinging me from this board. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you've now linked to that incident twice, let me address it.
    Yes, I inadvertently broke the 1RR rule on that page, and you quite reasonably noted me on it. I undid one of my reverts. In the other, as I explained, the content had already been re-added in the correct section. The fact that you proceeded to bring an admin to threaten me so that I had to duplicate the content (with it now appearing once in the wrong section) was classic Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. The content I had re-added then had to be taken down by the editor who had originally added it to the wrong section. You were clearly Wikipedia:NOTHERE, and it was yet another instance of the Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND and bullying behaviour that in this instance you've shown towards @GeogSage. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you planning to continue targeting this editor or any other editors active in the PIA topic area? Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an accusation here that I reject. I'm not sure why you get to Wikipedia:Assume bad faith in such a specific way here, but that's your prerogative. For clarity, I don't intend to target anyone at all. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe a conversation on the Char Bouba war page I had a few months ago [93] ties into the POV pushing mentioned above. I was asked to attribute the claim despite no other statements on the page needing attribution with the dispute not being resolved until I did [94]. Given Oumar Kane was a respected historian and Senegalese professor [95] I fail to see why this had to be done, although given the accusations above it seems this text did not favour his POV (this being of Moroccan involvement in modern-day Western Sahara or Mauritania) and was thus inclined to oppose its inclusion.
    This unrelated conversation from October also contains behavior similar [96] [97] to what Samuelshraga has identified above. I agree that this kind of behavior is off-putting, it is discouraging when someone is treated like this. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had similar experiences with M.Bitton at Battle of Algiers (1956–1957) see [98] and Algerian War see changes. Mztourist (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm amazed to see you link to a discussion that highlights your deliberate violations of the WP:OR and WP:NPA policies in order to whitewash a war criminal. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And there you go once again pushing your POV, just proving everything that forms the basis of this complaint about you. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion that you linked to speaks for itself: it exposes your deliberate policy violations (WP:NPA and WP:OR) (in order to whitewash a war criminal). M.Bitton (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Vague accusations are not proof, meanwhile you accusing me of "whitewashing a war criminal" is a clear breach of WP:NPA. Mztourist (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your entire edit history is about whitewashing and denying war crimes, particularly around topics surrounding Korea and Vietnam. You should be reported and banned. Orocairion (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that is an accurate statement about @Mztourist. I didn't go through their entire edit history, as it is quite extensive with 72,888 edits since 24 December 2009. I struggle to believe that they have made it 16 years "whitewashing and denying war crimes," although it might be theoretically possible. I don't see any strong evidence that they have engaged in such behavior, and see that their talk page has not flown under the radar in a way that might disguise such blatant POV, and see their behavior has likely been assessed by several admin/editors. I personally think you should strike that text and apologize, but that is only my opinion. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeogSage There are instances of his edits revolving around removing any mentions of war crimes or massacres carried out in Korea and Vietnam by ROK or US forces, using the argument that if the US/ROK didn't admit to them, they really didn't happen and are hoaxes. They are on record for trying to delete the Tây Vinh massacre article, his whole argument basically being "US sources good, non-US sources are propaganda always and bad". Imagine going as far as trying to dispute My Lai.
    If that kind of argument was made with regards the Ukranian war, people wouldn't hesitate to ban any such editor. It wouldn't take much effort to hide what basically amounts to vandalism and denialism in a mountain of inoquous edits, either. Orocairion (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues around military history and massacres are extremely hard to sort out. I'm not sure about any specifics, but disagreement on what makes a reliable source and interpretation of historic events is something we deal with across academia. Different interpretations of source material, or opinions about what constitutes a reliable source, are not a moral failing. I don't know what exact disputes they've been a part of, but it does not look like their "entire edit history is about whitewashing and denying war crimes," and while that might be hyperbole, accusing someone who you disagree with of trying to cover up war crimes does not really seem like assuming good faith. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orocairion, I agree that making this kind of statement really does not seem like assuming good faith. Please do not make further statements like Your entire edit history is about whitewashing and denying war crimes unless you are prepared to back them up with evidence that is much better than what has so far been brought up in this thread. If you do have such evidence, though, please start a new ANI thread (or a WP:AE thread if relevant) about it, since it shouldn't be ignored. I strongly recommend that you avoid hyperbole like "entire edit history" if you do so. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its interesting that User:Orocairion, who has made a total of 30 edits and who I have had no interactions with, has such a strong opinion of my edits and chosen to join this discussion. Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orocairion: don't let involved editors intimidate you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaslighting is part and parcel of your modus operandi, so no surprises there.
    The absence of any mention in the RS means it is sourced only an incompetent editor or a system gamer would say such nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are you accusing of gaslighting? Once again such accusations are a personal attack. You keep digging your hole deeper. Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed a content dispute at DRN about Western Sahara on the map at the Geography article, because this conduct dispute is also pending here about the same article and subtopic. When this conduct dispute is closed, survivors should discuss the draft RFC on the article talk page, and then take part in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The content being spread across so many pages was hard to manage and moving faster then I could keep up with. Really looking forward to read the RfC, I'm a bit exhausted on this topic and hope we can have an answer so we can have a consistent path forward for how to handle updates and such. The discussion has gotten way out of hand and I'm not thrilled it ended up here, and hope it can be resolved with a Minnow wack if anything, as @Dw31415 said. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The self-victimisation is just unbelievable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I self-victimizing, exactly? The two lines I think could match this are: "The content being spread across so many pages was hard to manage and moving faster then I could keep up with," and "I'm a bit exhausted on this topic." I'm just tired of talking about this at this point, and having it spread across 3 or 4 talk pages was not easy to keep track of. I can't see how this is any different from where you said "just reading it gives me a headache as it reminds me why I ended up correcting you (in vain) more times than I care to remember" above, except I'm not trying to direct the cause of my exhaustion at you, but at the discussion. There are more editors involved then just you on this, and even if it was an entirely civil and positive experience, I don't have that much energy or time in my schedule for Wikipedia now a days, and this has eaten into that time. I just want it resolved at this point so I can focus on other things. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Pete's sake. I'd gotten about 2/3 of the way through looking at these diffs, but in the time it's taken an admin to respond here the personal attacks and general incivility continue in this thread, even after a logged AE warning about aspersions and failure to be WP:CIVIL. Gaslighting is part and parcel of your modus operandi, The self-victimisation is just unbelievable, etc, and, just as the editors bringing the complaint have noted, and refusing to specify when asked (I rest my case.) I will set a tempblock, but I'm not at all convinced there isn't grounds for further community action here. The idea that Talk:Battle_of_Algiers_(1956–1957)#Teitgen's_claims shows MzTourist deliberately violating OR and NPOV is astonishing. -- asilvering (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it very interesting that the moment Mztourist commented on M.Bitton's history, Orocairion - somebody who has never edited Wikipedia: space before, who has never edited articles on Korea and Vietnam, who has as the closest thing to "war crimes" previously only made two edits to Talk:Augusto Pinochet, and who had not edited since 25 February - suddenly appeared to personally attack them and declare they should be banned for whitewashing and denying war crimes, particularly around topics surrounding Korea and Vietnam. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RA

    An IP user is very committed to evading a recent block (see 1, 2, 3). Filing here as opposed to WP:AIV because I don't think the user's edits are solely spam or vandalism. ipcheck does not see all their IPs as proxies, so filing new block requests here that don't belong at WP:OPP.

    Some common behavior patterns are a particular focus on WP:RA/BAE, misspelling (recent diff example, but widespread), and nonsensical requests (recent diff, see BAE's history for more).

    Given this abuse has been long-term, I imagine I will continue adding IPs to this incident until/unless the AN case leads to page protection (or I lose interest). The filing here is only pursuing individual blocks on IPs that don't register as proxies. Tule-hog (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    168.195.25.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tule-hog (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked, obvious block evasion. Not a proxy but they have found a different telecommunications company. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    2804:389:b171:c588:b869:a3b7:72cf:fcb1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - from Brazil, where IP user is located. Typical request with unrelated link. Tule-hog (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this is block evasion and have reverted the edit on that basis. It’s an IP with no other editing history in the /64 so let’s just keep an eye on it for now. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exxxtrasmall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tule-hog (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing, trolling and WP:IDNHT in 2025 Ecuadorian general election

    Edit warrior blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dietricht (talk · contribs) has been cited several times by me and @Leo Bonilla over possible bloating, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX and POV-pushing in background of said article. Bonilla opened up a discussion on talk to raise these concerns and I pinged Dietricht to respond there. Instead, they responded with trolling [99] [100] that appears to prove blatant bias and proceeded to restore their edits without consensus or a decent explanation on talk [101] [102]. Note that @Number 57 had also removed an incoherent post by Dietricht in the same talk page for something that appears to be trolling previously [103]. Borgenland (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: They are now proceeding with full-blown edit warring. Borgenland (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also reported detricht at AN3. Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To add, their edit warring began a few days prior, when I trimmed stuff citing reasons mentioned above [104]. Since then and until this report was filed, they had been gradually restoring their edits without consensus [105] [106] and garnishing things on the side apart from these chunky diffs. Borgenland (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They had the chance to reply and edit warred instead; blocked for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2603:8080:2ff0:cd70:6502:ac5d:ac04:ca25 /64 LTA

    Blocked for 1 month. --qedk (t 愛 c) 00:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2603:8080:2ff0:cd70:6502:ac5d:ac04:ca25 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made over 200 edits since September 2024. Usually one or two daily with breaks in between. More edits made lately. Changes IPs every few days. Almost all edits have been reverted. Often "resurrects" defunct companies. e.g. removed the "|defunct=" entry in infoboxes and other similar info w/o explanation. Made 19 edits alone to Turner Broadcasting System on nine different dates. IP/64 all contributions

    Should this IP range be blocked? Thanks Adakiko (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was improperly blocked by Star Mississippi and they refused give a block reason

    I think their account was hacked or something similarly tragic, but they refused to provide a reason when I requested to know why I was blocked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistletoe-alert (talk • contribs) 02:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it would help if you provided your signature so we knew who you were and also stated which administrator blocked you. If you were "banned", you wouldn't be able to edit this page at all. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mistletoe-alert, sign your posts by typing ~~~~ so we can identify you.
    You've haven't been blocked/banned in the recent days unless we count your 31 hour block (not ban!) on Feb 2nd.
    To the spectators, see Mistletoe's pre-blanked talk page for possible context.Tarlby (t) (c) 04:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick look through this editor's edit history shows there was also a previous ANI thread about them. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You play the clarinet? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mistletoe-alert, can you explain what you mean by "play the clarinet"? Is this what you are alluding to? TarnishedPathtalk 07:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That briefly confused me as well. Turns out Tarlby has a “plays the clarinet” userbox on their user page. Still, that comment is a non-sequitur in this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    UD has an outrageous secret meaning for every ordinary term you can think of. For instance. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for your 31-hour block is clearly explained here. I recommend you read the discussion carefully and act upon the advice you were given. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You failed to read that. Nothing there about the block reason. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You were blocked due to your conduct, both in previous editing and in that discussion. The fact that you can't see that lends credence to a WP:BOOMERANG. You have also not notified @Star Mississippi:, as required. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 06:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the articulated conduct that deserved a block? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was discussed extensively in the ANI report that resulted in your block, in which you contributed extensively. Obviously you don't care for the result, and your frequent blanking of your talk page obscures a number of issues, but it's damn disingenuous to claim now that you're ignorant of what's gone on. I strongly recommend you stop trying to pick a fight over a long-expired block. Ravenswing 06:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • From that thread, people raised the following concerns:
    • Mistletoe-alert has been acting in a rather uncivil manner
    • They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and their narrow interest in org articles screams UPE to me
    • It's easy to jump to the UPE conclusion based on their actions around CompoSecure, where they (1) created the article, (2) accused the editor who moved the page to Draft space of "edit farming", (3) re-created the article in main space after the original was moved to draft, and (4) added the company without citation to J.P. Morgan Reserve Card and Centurion Card.
    • The immediate behavioural concern I have is their refusal to accept constructive criticism, based on their branding of editors who provide critique of their work as edit farmers or vandals. If the uncivil and almost combative behaviour continues, a block or other sanction will be necessary sooner rather than later.
    You disagreed with those assertions but obviously that alone isn't enough to avoid a block; and you replied to the last one with the difference lies in the two individuals clearly mixing their duty to Wikipedia with personal agendas, which is WP:ASPERSIONs and therefore further WP:UNCIVIL behavior, so it's unsurprising you'd get blocked after that. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually helpful. It’s not so much disagreeing versus there categorically being zero evidence of these things. The ANI started with me editing a page about black churches, so this whole UPE thing is a complete joke. I never attacked anyone personally. Maybe someone could argue ACI. But even assuming I was uncivil, how would this result in such an arbitrary amount of blockage? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “ The block notice you receive will contain the reason why an administrator has blocked you from editing, usually with a link to the relevant policy or guideline that was broken; read it carefully and try to understand how your behavior did not follow the given policy.”
    This never happened Mistletoe-alert (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you are referring to this block notice on 2025-02-02. I don't know, but if this had happened to me, I might think that it could be partly because of the WP:ARBECR violations at Nerdeen Kiswani in the preceding days that appear to have been part of a sequence that resulted in the page being EC protected. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This never happened - yes, it did. It said you were blocked for disruptive editing. That is, in fact, the reason you were blocked, and contained a link to the guideline. And as for The ANI started with me editing a page about black churches, so this whole UPE thing is a complete joke - once you're at ANI, your behavior, all of it, is open to scrutiny. The reason the ANI thread started is not especially relevant to the outcome. Now if you are, as you argue (at length and strenuously...which, to be honest, is in my experience on ANI usually a sign, increasingly strong with the amount of argument provided, that the editor arguing is in fact guilty of the conduct being argued against) not disruptive, UPE, or anything else, then prove that through editing in a policy-compliant, noncontroversial way. Either way, I strongly suggest you drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strictly speaking by a literal reading of WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, Star Mississippi should have ideally said something like "per this ANI thread" when they alerted you that you were blocked here, but since you'd already been informed of the ANI thread and were participating in it, meaning you were clearly already aware of it, the block can hardly be called improper; even their basic "Disruptive editing" rationale in the block message itself should have been clear to you in that context. The main reason to include a reference to the ANI thread in the block message or notification would be as a courtesy to later people reviewing the block so they don't need to go over your discussion history to understand it. But the discussion ANI did include discussion of your conduct, with relevant diffs, which you're clearly aware of because you *replied to it; the fact that you weren't convinced by it doesn't change anything - WP:SATISFY applies to blocks, too. Obviously it would be hard to block anyone if it was necessary to satisfy them as to the evidence of their own misconduct. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mistletoe-alert why did you suddenly decide to complain about this 31 hour block? I mean the block itself is over 1 month and it's not like you've been inactive since then, far from it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Before I file an SPI, are you the same person who created the user:Rob Roilen account? You created this account at the time that account was blocked, and your behaviors are quite similar. Thanks, 173.22.12.194 (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm, they are quite similar, but Rob Roilen was blocked as a checkuser-block which, I would have thought, have coughed up any other socks around at the time. Interesting, though. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that, but there are, of course, ways around a CU. The behavioral similarities are overwhelming. Including a retaliatory filing that drags a blocking admin to the notice boards. I’ll need to get to a desktop later today to file the report. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carl Sandberg said it best: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” Also, it might be helpful to read WP:SATISFY; Mistletoe-alert doesn't get to set terms under which they will be satisfied, those are set by the community. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe there's anything for me to add here. I apologize for missing their ping, but was in a discussion with them subsequent to the block where it was clear @Mistletoe-alert understood the UPE. Will be sure to add ANI link in all blocks. I typically do but as it was a month ago I don't recall why I didn't or whether there was a copy paste link error. Star Mississippi 15:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Site ban Mistletoe-alert

    NOT NOW
    Premature proposal. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I propose a site block. This is definitely one editor that will never get the message until we boot his %$# off site, and until that happens all he’ll do is complain and whine, in the process becoming the eternal time sink for admins and drawing us away from issues that we should be handling. 2600:1011:B119:EBD:7C17:7112:124E:6E22 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Site Ban This has devolved into pure trolling. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban They gotta be trolling. What relevance does my pretty clarinet userbox have here? See also. Tarlby (t) (c) 15:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Maybe I was a little more grumpy/irritable earlier today. I've been convinced a site ban may not be necessary, but a big warning should be issued. Re @FeydHuxtable, I didn't consider it to be an icebreaker because such an interaction felt incredibly random. The Banker and Quant didn't start arguing because they had no urgent business to be discussing. If Mr. Banker asked Quant about his hat in the middle of a court case against each other, that'd be really weird. If Mistletoe asked me about my clarinet on my talk page assuming this thread never existed, I would've been happy to answer. Tarlby (t) (c) 23:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a friendly gesture, an attempted icebreaker, which is quite common in the milieu someone like Mistletoe is from. Picture this: A banker & a quant have been vexing each other for weeks as forced to work together on a project despite being on the opposite sides of the political divide. One day they happen to meet outside the office as arrive for work at the same time. The quant has his Mets hat on, the banker says "You support the Mets?" , quant say 'yes', and Boom!, suddenly they're friends over the common interest. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking, I still support some sort of sanctions over this behavior but in retrospect it's too early for a site ban. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 00:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Archimedes787

    Archimedes787 has been involved in changing the result field to Yugoslav/Bosnian Serb/VRS victory on military events related to wars in the Balkans. All done against consensus or without sources or misusing sources that do not support the changed result. For example:

    1. Air Battle of Valjevo article, here
    2. 1994 Goražde air strikes here
    3. Dibran Wars (1912–1921) here
    4. Operation Amanda here, and
    5. Operation Echo here.

    This is very similar editing behaviour to that of the socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hungarianhistorian97/Archive, for example (these are all from separate sock accounts):

    1. [107]
    2. [108] and [109]
    3. [110]
    4. [111]
    5. [112]
    6. [113]
    7. [114]
    8. [115]

    Now, I understand from the sock investigation that Archimedes787 is not a sock of Hungarianhistorian97, but the editing behaviour is very similar, and it seems highly likely to me that in addition to the socking there is also some intensive meat puppetry occurring around these accounts and in this subject area. Short of semi-protecting hundreds of articles, what can be done about this? It is pretty disruptive in a controversial editing area. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Arknights12

    Dear Wikipedia Community,

    I would like to raise a concern regarding a Wikipedia administrator's handling of edits on Mohammad A. Arafat. It appears that the admin is selectively adding information while opposing valid contributions that provide necessary context. Specifically, the ORCHR report has been included as relevant to the page, yet the response from the concerned party has been deemed irrelevant. This creates an imbalance and contradicts Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

    I believe that if a report is considered important enough to be included, then the response addressing it should also be part of the article to ensure fairness and neutrality. However, attempts to discuss this have been met with resistance.

    I kindly request an independent review of this issue to determine whether the admin’s approach aligns with Wikipedia’s core policies. Transparency and fairness are essential to maintaining Wikipedia’s credibility.


    I have been contributing to this discussion with explanations and without bias. However, I have noticed repeated warnings directed at me without valid justification. At the same time, edits are being made to the page that appear to reflect bias. Wikipedia's guidelines emphasize neutrality, and I believe all contributions should be evaluated fairly based on these principles.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Admin id: Arknights12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TahiHasan (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    One, we have no idea what article you're talking about. Two, this is a content dispute, not an administrative action, and thus should be discussed on the talk page of...whatever article this is supposed to be about, not ANI. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also User:Arknights12 is not even an admin. In addition you have not notified them of this discussion, which is required. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, all that. However, the article in question is pretty obviously Mohammad A. Arafat. Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    Moreover: as for TahiHasan's "I believe that if a report is considered important enough to be included, then the response addressing it should also be part of the article to ensure fairness and neutrality" and request for independent review above, here's my independent review of the matter: WP:MANDY. Bishonen | tålk 10:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    TahiHasan, I can't help noticing that nearly all of your edits have been to this one article. Have you got any conflict of interest to declare? And remember that Wikipedia's definition of neutrality is to include all significant viewpoints that have been expressed by independent reliable sources. If such sources don't exist then the viewpoint might as well not exist. Anyway, you have done the right thing by posting on the talk page (but it would be even better if you hadn't used an LLM) as this seems to be a content dispute, but you should wait longer for a reply. Editing Wikipedia is not compulsory. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 170.231.85.193

    170.231.85.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding mass unsourced claims of death to biographies, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. IP was blocked for 31h on March 4th, behaviour continued after block expired. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. for one week. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    False death reports are among the most pernicious types of vandalism that can seriously damage Wikipedia's credibility and deeply hurt people's feelings. This IP, who appears to be a sock of User:Lauraherme Gava, vandalized 46 biographies of living people in a couple of days. Extremely concerning. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs from Brazil have been making these rapid fake-death edits for months, and AIV is very responsive to blocking them when reported. I figured Lauraherme Gava was their attempt to avoid being reverted as an IP. Schazjmd (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sofia Evangelidou -- edit warring over creation of an article; not discussing

    This editor has created the article Mindvalley. It was redirected by Padgriffin ([116]) as promo. Sofia Evangelidou then reverted the redirection ([117]). After another redirection, she reverted again ([118]). I then draftified the article and notified her. She proceeded to recreate the article in mainspace again ([119]). I redirected it ([120]), and she reverted that ([121]). I see no attempts from her to communicate, even though she has been notified of the draftification. Janhrach (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that there seems to be some COI here, the editor's refusal to communicate despite repeated attempts at doing so are pretty concerning- I feel like an AFD would just result in it reverting to a redirect anyways, the article in its current state is not fit for main. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 16:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AS an interim step, I have p-blocked from article space as they need to communicate Star Mississippi 17:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found online some good evidence online that this is UPE. I don't know how much can I reveal per WP:OUTING, but Mindvalley is listed as a client at https://growthgirls.com. Janhrach (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Janhrach: perhaps you could bring this to WP:COIN (if you haven't already?) Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 19:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that if there are any concerns regarding WP:OUTING, the information can be sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports. -- Ponyobons mots 20:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not helpful Ms. Evangelidou's case that she even stated in the deletion discussion for mindvalley that she was an employee of a marketing firm. Insanityclown1 (talk) Insanityclown1 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that's just a coincidence... Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely, per BRD, the correct thing to do would have been to start a discussion after Sofia Evangelidou reverted the first time? She may be wrong here on the content, but it seems pretty poor to re-revert. I note that the article talk page is still a red link. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption on disambiguation page

    201.164.177.154 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly changing content at Amame to include content that was deleted at Amame (album) in mid-February. This editor out of Mexico is also likely 201.122.44.60 (talk · contribs) (blocked three months on March 2, 2025) and 189.203.56.102 (talk · contribs) (blocked two weeks on February 23 for block evasion of 201.122.44.60).

    Referred to AIV. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The latest IP, 201.164.177.154, has now been blocked for 1-month by User:Widr. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    VANDALISM ON MARC MYSTERIO ARTICLE

    P-block and sock blocks endorsed. Nothing further needed here. Suggest a discussion on the Irish source if further needed at RSN Star Mississippi 17:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Followup: Nbaer00787 indef'd for terminal WP:IDHT. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I recently joined Wiki and spent time to imporve the Marc Mysterio article including sourced details about his Boxing Career from Irish Daily Star and UK Daily Express national newspapers.

    The vandal removed all of the edits calling them "trash". The abusive username is Drmies.

    The sources for my edits and quotes from WBC Boxing executives are directly from the Star and Express: https://www.the-express.com/sport/boxing/124448/jake-paul-st-patricks-day-fight-irish https://www.irishstar.com/sport/boxing/jake-paul-challenged-st-patricks-31897522

    The vandal has also removed references to Marc Mysterio as a Producer, Singer, Actor, Boxer as well as his associated acts from his infobox.

    I made these edits in good faith and now this editor Drmies blocked me. It seems like wiki is a closed society save for these editors. Thsi editor prives himself on blocks and deleted articles so much so that he lists his blocked #s on his editor page and this dwarfs his positive impact on article inclusion.

    With vandalism such as this, it's no surprise that wiki is being abondoned by users in favour of AI tools for being more reliable and without an agenda.

    I am asking the wiki community to undo the latest edit from Drmies on Marc Mysterio page and to unblock me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaer00787 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (non sysop comment) He blocked you from editing Marc Mysterio, just that page, for a week. Not giving any input on the decision, just making sure the block is clear to you. ✏️ C809 ⌨️ (let's chat) 05:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not notified @Drmies: as required. Also both the the Daily Star and Daily Express are considered deprecated sources and the use of them are prohibited on Wikipedia- see WP:DAILYSTAR and WP:DAILYEXPRESS. You have only been blocked from that specific article for a week, and other editors have also reverted your edits due to them relying on said deprecated sources. You have also used a sock (User:Pwbumpedm) to circumvent said block. Needless to say that's probably not happening. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 05:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When you provide unencyclopedic, promotionally-toned material that is sourced to depreciated, unreliable sources, and then sockpuppet to continue to push it after it's rightfully reverted, don't be surprised if editors refer to it as "trash". It is not vandalism, you are fortunate to remain blocked only from the one article instead of fully blocked for sockpuppetry, and Wikipedia has been being abandoned by its users since 2005 (at least). - The Bushranger One ping only 05:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    it's no surprise that wiki is being abondoned by users in favour of AI tools for being more reliable and without an agenda. AI reliable? That's the most hilariously false thing I have heard since a recent speech by the world's most famous politician. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that while the Express has been depreciated as a source, the Irish Daily Star appears to be a different newspaper than the British Daily Star (which has also been deprecated), although it owned by the same company - it isn't clear to me whether the deprecation covers the Dublin-based paper as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was asked at RSN last month. There wasn't any firm agreement on how independent it was of the UK version. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no agreement on that point, but there seemed to be agreement that it is an unreliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    NoCults and CIR

    I've come into conflict with the user NoCults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems inexperienced and has made relatively few edits. They've admitted that English is not their first language [122] Their userpage is very bizarre [123]. They have repeatedly in my opinion baselessly, accused me of attempting to defame Kjersti Flaa, accusing me of not properly citing sources when I had clearly done so [124] and of disruptive editing [125], including a rather aggressive warning on my talkpage [126] when I was clearly trying to have a reasonable conversation with them. I think NoCults need to be firmly told by an admin to knock it off and failing that, some kind of block for WP:CIR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to clarify that no one is accusing anyone of anything until you started ranting in my discussion thread where I asked everyone editing the page to weigh their references & add archived links to their references in order to avoid any link rot [WP:LR] but of course you chose to revert my edit, criticized my English skills since your way of using the language seems to be the only right way to use a language utilised by billions of people with different grammatical rules and linguistics. I warned you because of the revisions from yourself on Kjersti Flaa's article but also behavior [1] [2] that may harm the subject reputation (again, WP:NPOV) NC. (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just went over that talk page, NoCults, and what not so much jumped out at me as whacked me between the ears with a 2x4 is how shrill and strident you were. Not every second sentence has to be bold faced. Not every fifth word needs to be capitalized. Stop shouting, please. Beyond that, Fortuna has a definite point: this is coming off as a COI in spades. Ravenswing 10:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely apologise if the capitalisations or the bold-faced lettering within my comments are seen as aggressive since I'm only trying to emphasise given my lengthy comments. Rest assured that I learned my lesson in regards to this matter and I won't do this in the future in any discussions in Wikipedia. My apologies again. NC. (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • A question if I may. User:NoCults, do you have a personal, business or intellectual relationship with Ms Flaa? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no affiliations to any parties or individual/groups in any form or whatsoever. Furthermore, I was upset at the redo (diff) from @Hemiauchenia since my edit contained more than nine verified references providing a distinct background on the two entirely different topics and why they intertwined; a.) How Ms. Flaa increased in virality due to the footage being referenced and; b.) The controversy involving Lively and Baldoni in their film.
      These topics are entirely different and the diff was meant to provide a link that has a neural POV with the references within Wikipedia guidelines as per the WP:BLP and WP:V policy. While I understand that I have overreacted by creating a discussion describing the behavior, it is also not fair for them to conduct such practices without discussing these via the discussion thread. NC. (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see any experience editor failing to understand that these are two different but related issues, so it's not clear to me why you felt the need to make a big deal over it and especially with Hemiauchenia who seemed to understand this from the beginning. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would add that Hemiauchenia does seem to have tried to discuss the content issues on the talk page but it seems to have been difficult because it's really unclear what you're trying to say, or change in the article. Editors are not required to discuss changes before they make them if they reasonably believe their changes are supported by our policies and guidelines. If an editor disputes their changes, they welcome to revert per WP:BRD and these editors should then discuss these changes on the talk page. Assuming this was Hemiauchenia changing something and you reverting, This would involve Hemiauchenia explaining why they feel their changes were beneficial and you clearly explaining why you felt they weren't. As noted, a lot of the comments you left are fairly unclear on precisely what's wrong with Hemiauchenia's changes. BTW, ensuring links are archived is good practice but isn't required and the addition of archives links when the link is not dead (which is distinct from just ensuring the link is archived) can be controversial at times given the added page size for large pages. This isn't a large page so it's no matter here but I'm sure some editors don't do it for that reason. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't have a problem with the archiving per se, but I did have issues with NC's insinuation that what reliable sources had said about the interview was defamatory and their wording changes regarding Lively's attitude towards Flaa and NC's vehement insistence that the controversy surrounding the It Ends With Us and the interview re-upload had nothing to do with each other, and the archiving was swept up in the wording revert. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      My first thread within the talk page was a general post and is not directed to anyone but the editors to double-check any references. Apparently, this is seen as scaremongering since we are talking about a living person and their credibility, apologies for that.
      Second, insinuating phrases such as 'hostility' using a reference from Business Insider [127] can be seen as biased since a. the article referenced is a WP:GRAPEVINE taken from Daily Mail and Flaa's YouTube upload plus the article is entirely one-sided from Flaa's POV without giving any weight to Lively.
      Now, I understand that I was unable to properly explain the relationship between Ms. Flaa's popularity on the internet and the It Ends with Us fiasco. Given that Flaa is a WP:BLP I was merely stating that we must mention only the facts of our citations that (a. there is a controversy surrounding Lively; b. there are footages of Lively where behaviors including the one from Ms. Flaa are seen by others and some are documented in paper or electronic/internet form, this shows a pattern of behavior) At this point, I will even agree to the article deletion request given the articles' history and the highlighted context. NC. (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I strongly advise against against forewarning editors about policies and guidelines apropos of nothing. It changes the focus from the content to the rules themselves, which is both a poor way of establishing consensus and is generally associated with disruptive editing. I suspect that is why the editor who brought you to ANI mentioned your English: it might appear like you are being purposefully hard to understand, frustrating editors out of any discussion before it can even begin. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Understood and I greatly appreciate your input. From now on, I will reflect and use proper etiquette for my discussions as well as refrain from using any policies without the due diligence and discussion with other editors.
      I'd also like to put for the record that there could be a much better way to criticise other editors without discrimination to our intellect and questions on our ability to comprehend the English language, according to the 5P4 one must not attack the editor and WP:AGF I can't help but feel attacked when my use of English is criticised as 'terrible' without providing any logical merit or standing as to why it is 'terrible', nor any discourse asking me to further clarify.
      I know that I'm a WP:NOOB to the community and I don't edit a lot of articles unless I have verifiable sources. If you notice my userpage, I do not communicate with other editors via discussion threads unless this is necessary and in regards to your decision about the ANI, I will respect your decision in regards to that. NC. (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The 5,000 byte edit that I reverted wasn't actually that bad in terms of English, and I was getting it confused with some of your previous edits to the article (e.g. [128]) that clearly show that you do not have a firm grasp of how many English words are used, and also contained factual inaccuracies like suggesting that Flaa sparked the controversy surrounding It Ends With Us when this was already ongoing by the time Flaa reuploaded the interview. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The article was further updated without any conflicts on my end. I won't be challenging edits if they're valid, even without any explanation as to why they updated it. I want the same respect and civility that you'd give to any editor without using the 'terrible English' lingo or even using my words of sincere honesty ('English is not my first language') to strengthen your ANI case.
      I hope you pass this civility and kindness forward just like I pass them over to you. I understand my shortcomings and I've acknowledged and will work on them, I hope you do too. NC. (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not see this discussion was taking place, but I want to highlight the following:

    • Kjersti Flaa made a YouTube video (~250,000 views) in which she said, "And now everyone knows about it, or at least you guys know about it. I encourage everyone who uses Wikipedia to try and change it back to the way it was" (13:52). This is stealth canvassing.
    • Some of the article's contributors have this article as their sole focus, including User:NoCults, who began editing the article on the same day 2 days after Flaa's YouTube video was published. Of the article's 325 revisions, 227 were in the days following Flaa's video.
    • I nominated the article for deletion after searching for more sources to confirm my suspicion that Flaa doesn't meet the GNG. I stand by this reading.
    • The article's creator, User:PaulPachad, was banned for COI and promotional editing. PaulPachad's content remains in the article. They have carefully manipulated what sources say. Take, for instance, the statement that Flaa's unsuccessful lawsuit led to them cancelling the 2022 Golden Globes. This is not what the source says. Flaa's lawsuit led LA Times reporters to begin their own investigation of the HFPA's racial record: A judge dismissed the suit in March, calling its claims “hopelessly muddled.” But her allegations triggered a Los Angeles Times investigation that also noted the HFPA has no Black members. That led much of Hollywood to boycott the HFPA, which responded by pledging to reform its admission process, expand its membership and add a significant number of Black journalists.

    I have not investigated NoCults' conduct but wanted to provide the context for the article itself, which is beset by issues. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Having now reviewed the Talk page and this ANI discussion, I am relatively confident that the pattern depicted by NoCults' editing involves scaremongering by loosely stringing together Wikipedia policies. There is no specific content being contested: their communication style is disruptive by design, preventing the formation of consensus by nondescriptly complaining about bias and defamation. The all-caps DO NOT DEFAME on the Talk page is pretty clear. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoax creation by user Dwud

    (non-admin closure) Where did they go? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 15:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Dwud continues to create unverifiable articles despite the previous ones being deleted or being up for deletion. They already were blocked for 72 hours last month for "persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content". They have never posted on talk pages, and all their articles are either redirected, draftified, deleted or up for deletion. Can they please be indef blocked until they communicate and explain their dubious creations? Fram (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 85.134.229.147

    85.134.229.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content & categories (see WP:CATVER) about cancelled ports of video games to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JustAChurchMouse: edit-war, use of sources considered as unreliable by community consensus

    User:JustAChurchMouse has been edit-warring at the page Sedevacantism, reverting me numerous time, along with once @Pbritti:. See: [129], [130], [131]; [132]

    JustAChurchMouse has also added sources that are unreliable, along with sources declared unreliable by the community (WP:CESNUR).

    The user has ignored the consensusus on their sources at Talk:Sedevacantism#Reliable sources.

    The user has been imposing their changes, despite other users objecting to them. JustAChurchMouse has disregarded all opposition to their changes in a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT way, and has repeateadly added their changes back.

    The user has been made aware of WP:BRD twice ([133], [134]).

    The user was warned of the lack of reliable sources they provided for their claims (User talk:JustAChurchMouse#February 2025), and for their edit-warring behaviour (User talk:JustAChurchMouse#March 2025). They have chosen to ignore those.

    Therefore, I believe sanctions need to be taken against the user. Veverve (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    JustAChurchMouse, just stop edit-warring. You did the right thing by starting a talk page discussion, but absolutely the wrong thing by reinstating your edits before the discussion has completed. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am frustrated with this JustAChurchMouse, mostly due to the name-calling they engaged in, which was followed by peculiar comments about my nationality after I warned them about on their talk page. They also engaged in apologetic POV edit warring on the Catholic Church article back in January ([135], [136], [137]). My appraisal of their editing is that they are a staunchly Catholic editor (as I am) who is unable to understand Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a tool for evangelization or apologetics. While Phil Bridger's advice is sound, I think there's more going on here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They have resumed edit warring: [138]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried reporting them to WP:ANEW? But I see multiple editors edit-warring here. Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They haven't broken 3RR (24h limit passed) and ANEW is a tad fickle if that specific rule isn't broken. I'm assuming Veverve reported here for that reason. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I requested that they come here to discuss the situation but when I post these messages, I only have about 50/50 success. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing that. If they haven't replied by the time I wake up, I'll also encourage them to respond here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pbritti and Liz unfortunately no reply but they've resumed editing. I don't know if the recent changes are the same as before but they're still using the same sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I'm now involved as I just reverted JustAChurchMouse. Having looked at their changes I agree they seem to be problematic and until there's at least a partial block or maybe page protection (especially if it's not their preferred version being the wrong version that wins) it seems they're just going to continue to largely ignore concerns and give some minimal replies which include personal attacks. Perhaps seeing multiple editors will convince them to talk more before some administrative action, perhaps not. Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't hold out too much hope. They are conspicuous here by their absense. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I now add to my complaint personnal attack, refusal of WP:FAITH:
    • calls me a "non-content contributor deliberately trying to frustrate article development in bad faith" ([139])
    • says: You are deliberately trying to obstruct the development of this article because you have a bias or bee in your bonet against the subject matter and are trying to hide behind obscurantist Wikilawyering. This is not in the interests of spirit of what Wikipedia is for at all and does not aid in any constructive way in developing a quality article here ([140])
    On top of this, a new WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: You are not proposing any serious constructive content additions to this article at all, so I am just going to carry on developing the article. ([141]) Veverve (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have p-blocked them from article space entirely as they need to communicate. I am not against a larger block if the communication doesn't indicate an understanding of the issues raised here. Star Mississippi 15:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So I am mostly interested in researching and building underdeveloped articles on religious topics. At present, I am attempting to take the rather sorry state the sedevacantism article is in and gradually drag it up to a decent level. I don’t check my talk very often, not interested in using this as an avenue for socialising and am just interested in researching and building articles in the little spare time I have, so forgive me if I am not monitoring my talkpage 24/7.

    I was working on the article sedevacantism, when Veverve wholesale reverted all of the work added, with the vague editor summary “not RSs”, with no message on the talkpage whatsoever. So I started a Talk:Sedevacantism#Reliable_sources questioning why these had been removed.

    One source was from the journal of an organisation associated with this movement, which plots out a comprehensive international history of the earliest individuals involved in it. There is no suggestion that the material it is being used to reference is contentious or somehow disputed. I pointed out according to WP:Secondary such sources do not even require to completely independent. I tried to tease out of Veverve, how this was supposedly an unreliable source, what evidence we have of their unreliability or why he thinks we could not use a source from a group within this movement for non-contentious mundane content, but couldn’t get a solid definitive answer from him. Its basically just his subjective opinion. It just devolved into circular deep Wikilawyering and there was basically nowhere further go to with the discussion as he wasn’t challenging any actual content, just mass reverting based on his subjective opinion of this source.

    The second source which be brought into question is Center for Studies on New Religions, a group which published studies on academic works on new religious movements. I have since added another source from an unrelated academic work anyway. But this literally was, again, used in a completely uncontentious manner to reference that an organisation exists in Japan and what year it was founded. Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say we cannot use this organisation as a reference, some people do not like the group because they don’t actively lobby against new religious movements, just describe their beliefs. But again, used for completely uncontentious material.

    Within the initial post here, Veverve claims to have a "consensus" on the question of the sources, this is simply not true. Nobody other than him has actually addressed the reliability sources themselves on the talkpage that I opened. My main irritation is Veverve rather than merely tagging these two specific references he has a problem with in the article with an appropriate tag, requesting they be augmented with supplementary source, starting a talkpage entry and inviting scrutiny of a source by a non-involved parties in a collaborative project mindset (all of which I would be more than willing to participate and collaborate in) but simply wholesale reverting, frustrating and apparently delierately obstructing any real effort to actually push forward and development of the progress of the article itself. How does this actually benefit Wikipedia or aid in developing it at all? I am willing to collaborate on content, of course, but the other person has to be as well. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not believe you have objectively described the situation; this can be seen when checking the article's talk page, and in looking at your behaviour in this article (edit-war, shifting the burden of proof, personnal attacks against me, etc.) of which you have said nothing and instead focused on me (despite the admin on your talk page previously advising you to WP:NOTTHEM). Furthermore, from what you wrote here and on the article's talk page, I do not believe you have properly understood what a RS is and how primary sources can be used. Veverve (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Niknam

    I´m on mobile and in a hurry, so a very rudimentary post only: the editor who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Niknam (dubious close anyway) then made a whole bunch of edits, including the creation of completely unrelated redirects, from that close. Can some people please check this, inform that editor, and cleanup or undo everything if necessary? Fram (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The closer (User:United Blasters) did apologize at DRV, but seriously: there ought to be an automatic trout slap for ANY non-admin attempting ANY non-SNOW AfD close, and editors with barely a thousand edits shouldn't be doing even that much. Ravenswing 13:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The close has been overturned at DRV, and I've just closed the DRV. The AfD has been reopened. I haven't checked whether any cleanup still needs to be done.—S Marshall T/C 13:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram, I noticed that nine years ago we had problems with non admin AfD closures. Are we so short of admins closing AfDs that we need non-admins to do them? Often when I go to the backlog of AfDs to close, it's either empty or has a few really difficult ones everyone else is shying away from. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, periodically, we'll get some very eager NACs looking for AFDs to close and relist. That interest typically lasts a few months and then they move on to other pursuits. Or they will make some error, always from inexperience, not ill intentions, they'll face unwanted negative attention and stop their participation at AFD.
    Over the past few years, the number of editors participating in AFDs (except for the hot topic subjects) has declined and we also go through highs and lows of admin participation as closers. Right now, we lost Beeblebrox who was very busy closing AFDs, because of life changes. We could always use a few more admin closers who could rotate in and close a few on a regular basis. But, you're right, the easy closure decisions are generally closed on time, leaving the more murkier discussions for Owen to sort through. Liz Read! Talk! 18:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional SPA

    MOVED TO TALK
    Nothing else to do here. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 18:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    F1WDC2021 is a WP:SPA that solely exists to promote their opinion that the results of the 2021 Formula One World Championship are invalid. MB2437 15:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You are reverting them based on them being a single purpose account, haven't provided any other reason to revert them. Further, you've not attempted to start any discussion with them on their user talk page nor on Talk:Max Verstappen. Please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There's no grounds on which to block User:F1WDC2021 here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their edits were a comprehensive attempt to downplay the subject's career.[143][144] They have made edits at four articles specifically to promote the opinion above.[145][146][147] MB2437 16:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then discuss it with them. This appears to be a content dispute. Please read WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. WP:AN/I isn't the first step in dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that F1WDC2021 has taken a correct step, and has posted at the Teahouse, getting a suggestion to take this to the article talk page. Which both editors here should. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been taken to the article talk page. MB2437 17:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Cergun62

    Cergun62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing a series of undiscussed moves based on the official name used by the government (see user's contribs). I've warned them on their talk but they still did it again. Now, in Asir, one of the pages they moved, I did a ce on the lead section to clarify the location within the Arabian Peninsula. Apparently, they didn't appreciate this and changed what I wrote [148] to a version with really poor grammar, without providing a reason. I reverted their changes, but then they rewrote the same section (removing the geographic region again) with even worse grammar and still gave no explanation for their actions, so I reverted their edits again [149]. They continue to use that strange wording and avoid including the geographic region.

    Now, their last edit summary was very uncalled for and really hurt [150]. They started by accusing me of having a political motive: "I'm sensing political motives." and as if that wasn’t enough of a personal attack, they continued by saying: "I know you don't have a country to be proud of, but please, stop trying to win a political fight in Wikipedia of all places." Excuse me?? What does my country have to do with this?? We were on the topic of geography. How does mentioning that I live in a failed state relate to this?

    Cergun did this edit here where he removed his govt's killing of Ethiopian refugees from the Najran Province article that could only be interpreted as whitewashing their govt's actions. This isn't their first doing so as they did it before on Asir previously here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, there seems to be some edit warring going on at Asir. There does not appear to be any discussion about it at Talk:Asir. Why not? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would've loved to start a discussion if there were something to discuss. They accused me of having political motives when I asked them why don't they want "South Arabia" in the lead [151] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what happened HERE in this discussion but Legalnewsbench has been blocked so I'm closing this. Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Legalnewsbench is joining in with edit warring at the Murder of Vandana Das article, where they have left the following edit summary in this diff. This strikes me as being a legal threat, and I am bringing it here as such. Whether or not this qualifies as a blockable or sanctionable offense is obviously at the discretion of an administrator, but I did want to bring it to get eyes on it. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    trout Trout for edit warring over templates at ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring with possible meat- and/or sockpuppetry

    These four accounts have been involved in edit warring at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, all of them removing the same content under the same arguments (when they actually use the edit summary to explain them, which is not always the case) within a very short timeframe. The thing is: most of these accounts just appear to conduct that revert, then vanish into thin air just in time to avoid breaching WP:3RR independently. NewGuy2024 is an exception as they also regularly post in the talk page, but their contribution history shows that they are a single-purpose account with a very narrow set of articles (just that one and the one for the 2024 election). The Editor Interaction Utility shows a very strong correlation between these four accounts' edits, and very particularly between NewGuy2024 and Bear3424, a behaviour which sounds like a duck quacking in terms of WP:MEAT and/or WP:SOCK. Impru20talk 21:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    From the talk page it's a dispute over including polls from companies that are not part of the BPC. Secretlondon (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s the gist. There are several/many/lots? of very keen and singular editors who are really keen on a BPC only page, even though it has to ignore wiki's general view on reliable sources. One of the phrases was, "WP:whoknowshwat", which I rather like.Halbared (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a new edit by NewGuy2024, as they keep edit warring. Impru20talk 22:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANNIE
    No tags for this post.