View source for Wiki143:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} 
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 1192
|algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}
{{stack end}}
<!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE -->

==User:bloodofox==
I am posting here because [[user:bloodofox]] has been chronically and intractably stubborn, argumentative, and belittling to fellow editors. They have displayed a [[WP:OWN]]ership attitude about articles they have written and topics they're involved with.
 
To provide some context and evidence of a long-term pattern, they've been at AE three times: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive203#bloodofox|November 2016]], which resulted in a year-long topic ban from the Clintons; [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive266#Bloodofox|May 2020]]; and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive326#Bloodofox|December 2023]] which was closed with "All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views."
 
More recently, in december 2024, [[User:Theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumarr and Vetr|nominated an article of theirs for deletion]]. Their response to a good-faith nomination was {{tq|No and learn the basics before even nominating something like this. This is just obnoxious. [...] There's a lot to do on Wikipedia and attempting to delete well-sourced and well-written articles on topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about isn't one of them.}} During the discussion, they were hostile and condescending, even [[Special:Diff/1260882954|editing their messages]] to be ''more'' hostile — 
* {{tq|Again, you'd be wise to become familiar with even the basic of fundamentals with a topic before injecting yourself into a discussion regarding it. These aren't "story summaries", which you'd know if you read the article you're trying to delete. [...] This drive to delete well-sourced material useful for readers over actually working to improve Wikipedia is absurd.}}
* {{tq|Spend less time on pages like this and more time actually reading about these subjects before wasting your time and the time of others, or maybe even spend that time attempting to improve the project in some way. What you're up to here is essentially Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.}} 
This is exemplary of a pattern of behavior where bloodofox asserts that those who disagree with them must be unfamiliar with the topic and/or acting in bad faith.
* [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ýdalir/1|June 2024]]: {{tq|From your response, it appears that you are new to this topic.}} 
* [[User talk:Bloodofox/Archive 4#Bold, revert, discuss|November 2024]]: {{tq|If you can't function on even the most basic level on Wikipedia, then maybe spend your time doing something else.}}; {{tq|Or maybe you could briefly glanced at the article before you decided to try to revert war? Maybe invest in a punching bag rather than trying to take whatever it is you're dealing with out on random Wikipedia volunteers.}} [[User:JBW|JBW]] gently requested they reconsider their messages and be more civil, and bloodofox doubled down.
* [[Talk:Mami Wata|April 2025]]: [[User:ForsythiaJo|ForsythiaJo]] added to an article which bloodofox had previously rewritten, and all of their contributions were immediately reverted. Bloodofox accused them of censorship over a fairly simple good-faith content dispute — {{tq|As long as you continue to censor the lead, your edits will be reverted on sight.}} ([[Special:Diff/1284695254|link]]); {{tq|This article is a common target for would-be censors [...] Attempts at censoring this article (WP:CENSOR) will be reverted on sight.}} ([[Special:Diff/1284695028|link]]); {{tq|You need to read the article and, for that matter, more about the topic before writing about it}} ([[Special:Diff/1284696788|link]])
 
This brings us to current behavior. The discussion at [[Talk:Braucherei]] has been going on since March; the whole talk page is a mess, and bloodofox is hardly the only person being hostile and making accusations — however, it is worth noting that after [[Special:Diff/1281203274|confronting another editor]] for [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Proposed title change of article Pow-wow (folk magic) to Braucherei|canvassing]], they themselves [[Special:PermanentLink/1281416430#Pow-wow (folk magic)|blatantly canvassed at FTN]] and were called out on it by [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[Special:GoToComment/c-FactOrOpinion-20250320124900-Bloodofox-20250320065800|link]]), [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox/Archive 4#Canvassing|link]]), and [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[Special:Diff/1294900822|link]]). 
 
I first encountered them during discussion around [[Bæddel and bædling]]. It was promoted to GA in December, and FA in early February, appearing on the main page as TFA on April 17. By April 20, bloodofox had started no fewer than 10 talk page sections. On june 3 they added two more after a hiatus on the article. To date, they have [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#top-editors contributed 53% of the talk page's text], [[WP:BLUDGEON|overwhelming everyone else]] in the discussion; over three times as much text as the next biggest contributor, and twice as much as the actual article in question. This is not including times the article has been brought to other pages, such as [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]]'s talk page ([[User_talk:Borsoka#Disruption|link]]), where he adopted a somewhat condescending attitude, calling him "{{tq|a new editor here}}", and defending changes made against talk page consensus by noting {{tq|If corrections are not applauded, the system is broken}}. When Borsoka noted that they were ignoring the views of other editors, they responded {{tq|How? I'm easily the most active individual on the talk page and as I review the article I am finding a plethora of issues.}} 

Bloodofox regularly belittles other editors based on not having a real-life academic background in linguistics (something that Wikipedia, as a volunteer project, does not require). 
* {{Tq|To clarify your understanding, what is your background in linguistics?}} ([[Talk:Bæddel and bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250420043200-SchroCat-20250420042400|link]])
* {{Tq|The primary issue here is that article was rubber stamped by editors without a background in linguistics}} ([[Talk:Bæddel and bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250419031100-Sawyer777-20250418161100|link]])
* {{Tq|Did anyone in these reviews have a background in linguistics?}} ([[Talk:Bæddel and bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250418072000-Tim riley-20250418071800|link]])
* {{Tq|only editors with familiarity with linguistics should have been involved in the review}} ([[Talk:Bæddel and bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250419203000-Liberman 2015's etymology only partially presented in the article|link]])
[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]] indicated he has an academic background: {{tq|FYI: I have a relevant academic background, although I don't think this matters much and I wouldn't brandish it like a dubious flag. Such things have been abused in the past (see Essjay controversy)}} ([[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1#c-ImaginesTigers-20250605142800-Bloodofox-20250605090500|link]]) and this was interpreted this as a full attack on bloodofox's character: {{tq|First, you've written this response aimed at critiquing me personally. I find the comparison to the Essjay controversy outrageous, insulting, and beyond the pale. Please strike that and refactor your text: Seriously, are you here to improve the article or to attack an individual editor? A reminder: this is a linguistics topic. If editors are uncomfortable or ungrounded in linguistics, they're going to have a hard time.}} ([[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1#c-ImaginesTigers-20250605142800-Bloodofox-20250605090500|link]]) He mentioned this again later despite ImaginesTigers and FAR coord Nikkimaria asking that this be litigated elsewhere.

This behavior — insisting that one must be a specialist in a field to have the final say on any content matter — is a consistent trend, and certainly one that makes the collaborative task of building an encyclopedia rather difficult for other editors. I am loath to bring this here, but their disruptive behavior has simply taken so much time out of too many editors' days. <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small>  22:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:"insisting that one must be a specialist in a field to have the final say on any content matter" is just outright untrue (how would I even do that? I have no control over that) and these quotes are cherry-picked out of context from a period spanning nearly a decade (2016, seriously!). Having happily collaborated and worked with many, many editors over the years on thousands of articles, I've long learned it doesn't pay to revert-war and all sourcing concerns should be on talk.
:Spending all that time trawling through my many thousands of edits all the way back to 2016 (again, 2016!) and pasting them here without any context (like me responding to ideological drive-by editing at [[Mami Wata]] or the constant, well-documented new religious movement attempts to control [[Falun Gong]] and related articles—sourced in the article no less) while quite selectively pinging ''anyone'' I've had a disagreement with over the past several years will of course just result in a dogpile on me by anyone who wants to get their digs in and is not something I personally would do to anyone.
:I get that you're unhappy about the discussion around your featured article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_475#Regarding_an_interpretation_of_an_OED_entry like me finding that you had completely misattributed a source and indeed that nobody at FA checked it before passing it along], but you could have just as simply engaged in source discussion with the several of us discussing it at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Bæddel_and_bædling/archive1 your featured article review]. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 04:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::the AE incidents from 2016-2023 are only briefly mentioned at the beginning, to establish that this is a long-running issue - that is normal at ANI, where people often ask for evidence of long-term behavioral patterns. one other quote from june 2024 is also a brief footnote. everything else, the bulk of the report, is from november 2024 to the present. i would hardly call that trawling through a decade of your edits (it's easier to skim user-talk page archives anyway) - these recent talk page discussions make up a substantial proportion, if not the majority, of your contributions in the last few months. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Actually, most of the time I've had on Wikipedia for the past several months has been spent rewriting [[Braucherei]] (it uncontroversially needed it) and a few related articles or ''attempting'' to get sources confirmed and discussed when I encounter an issue. This is a fishing expedition that involves the editor sifting through my editor history to cherry pick quotes and highlight 'incidents' from articles as diverse as [[Mami Wata]] and [[Falun Gong]], both of which are indeed for different reasons targets for drive-by attempts at censorship and scrubbing (as anyone can see from their talk pages or edit histories). This is a classic case of a handful of aggrieved editors trawling through my edit history to find cherry-picked examples and present them out of context while neglecting to mention their own actions and pinging anyone else I might have had a talk page disagreement with that might want to pile on. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 05:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:<small>was pinged as part of evidence:</small> ah, yeah, that AfD. that was a genuinely awful experience. Generalissima does a pretty good job of laying out what happened in that AfD, so I'll just add that I really was making an effort to raise my concerns and understand bloodofox's points. I <em>like</em> learning new things and I don't expect to understand everything perfectly on the first try – that's what makes DYK work really fun for me. But the way they blew up at me felt really hurtful and intimidating, and between that and the pings, i just gave up and the AfD closed. I've seen other discussions involving bloodofox that I would've wanted to participate in, but the interaction we had in that AfD was so terrible that the idea of stepping into another discussion to disagree with them seemed pointless and exhausting, so I just decided not to. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 23:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
::[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumarr and Vetr|The AfD, where you argued to delete the article outright, was in fact a snowball ''keep'']] because what you claimed about the article was incorrect, not because of some nefarious action on my part. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 04:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::No, it wasn't a snowball keep, bloodofox, so please don't misrepresent the discussion – the AfD ran the full seven days, and that's despite you having canvassed 5 of the 7 other keep votes. But this discussion isn't about content, it's about conduct – I never said that the AfD closed as keep <em>because</em> of your incivility, as if incivility is only a problem when it affects the outcome. It's the opposite: [[Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough|even being right isn't enough]]. Just in this thread, I'm seeing lots of other people come forward with their stories of how you derided them as incompetent, negligent, or bad-faith, and how it discouraged them from working with you. It wouldn't matter if you were 100% right on every single content dispute cited here – that's still not an acceptable way to treat people. I know how each one of those people felt trying to accomplish anything working with you, and that's why I wrote into this thread and spoke up – trust me when I say that I really didn't want to relive and repeat that experience. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 06:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{ec}}Bloodofox tends to put his criticisms a lot more trenchantly than I would, but this keeps coming up because they're an expert in several fields where Wikipedia has relatively few experts, or at least few who are now active to the extent of monitoring everything on their watchlists: Norse mythology, Germanic linguistics, folklore. In a crowdsourced project, people are sometimes going to edit beyond their knowledge (goodness knows, I have), and this arises especially at the intersections of specialties (such as with [[Bæddel and bædling]], it's a Germanic philology topic but also a queer history topic). I've expressed myself with bewilderment over Bæddel and bædling that his expert rewrite has been constantly opposed and that despite repeated explanations, it seems yet more discussion is always needed before the article can actually be improved; it seems counter to the whole spirit of Wikipedia collaboration, and to what I found when I looked up the process for improving an FA. I also participated in a recent deletion discussion, probably the one referred to, which was robust but ended in "keep and improve" after I and others marshalled usable sources and explained the cultural/scholarly context. Bloodofox has numerous GAs to his name, showing a commitment to quality as well as to encyclopedic coverage, while I just don't have any interest in GA or FA processes. Sometimes smoke means fire, there will be disagreements on the project, and it's quite easy to get into a topic that turns out to have been extensively studied (especially if you haven't previously written similar articles and don't realize what they should cover). And Bloodofox is rarely denying people's right to edit or opine on a topic, rather than—robustly and trenchantly, and often with specific citations—pointing out the relevant scholarship. In addition to actually editing the article, with citations. Except for the very direct, sometimes abrasive phrasing, I'd say those are all good collaboration. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
::Yngvadottir, despite some overlap in linguistic interests, I have not encountered bloodofox organically in talk space, so I lack that piece to consider whether your assessment or that of the numerous parties complaining here is closer to the mark. But that said, we have seen BOO involved in a non-trivial number of high-conflict discussions here and FTN. And just in terms of the many diffs cited in the early going in this discussion, we have more than sufficient cause to doubt {{tq|"Bloodofox is rarely denying people's right to edit or opine on a topic"}} as an accurate summary of their conduct in disputes.  Indeed, they seem to fall back upon this variety of [[WP:OWN|WP:OWNERSHIP]] and [[WP:Gatekeeping]] with serious abandon whenever confronted with positions contrary to their own in areas that they have defined as within their wheelhouse. {{pb}} Further, even if they were in fact "rarely" indulging in such a habit, that would still be a serious concern: they've been on this project for far too long to not be fully aware that we do no restrict access to articles on the basis of demonstrated academic credentials, for a bevy of reasons.  They should not be engaging in any degree of effort to restrict or discourage other editors on this basis whatsoever--let alone with the frequency and the hostile, bullying tone that we are seeing in numerous of the diffs presented here.  These behaviours (which, let's be clear, are only one component of larger issues that have been documented above) raise basic temperament/competency concerns, and bluntly, seeing just the evidence that has come up even this soon into the report makes it clear that the community is overdue in putting the full breaks on this behaviour. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 03:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::: For the record, I don't "own" any articles, nor have I stopped anyone from doing anything. I don't even have that ability: I'm not an admin, I don't revert-war, and these are all cherry-picked quotes form thousands of talk page discussion about content, content disputes. I've written, rewritten, and edited thousands of articles over decades now in collaboration with thousands of editors. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 03:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::: Well, I for one am amenable, in principle, to the argument that these are outlier behaviours.  But if I am perfectly honest, the degree to which you are minimizing the issues raised, here and below, does not do a lot to ease my concerns.  You don't need to wield the ban hammer as an admin in order to actively disrupt a topic area through the consistent denigration of the ability of others to constructively contribute to an area, based on your subjective assessment of their abilities and suppositions about their bona fides and backgrounds. Which we are seeing a lot of evidence of here. Granted, some of those reports are stale.  But others are not, and you have been here for far too long to plead ignorance as to the community's stance on such behaviour. {{pb}}Now, I'm cognizant that I don't have direct editorial experience with you to contextualize the complaints, but even without that personal element, it has not escaped my notice that this is not your first time rubbing up against the threshold of community expectations regarding gatekeeping and a hostile disposition towards discussion during disputes, as evidence by previous reports at AE, here, and AN3.  And even if we were to restrict our analysis to this report, there is pretty substantial documentation of some significantly problematic behaviour vis-a-vis, at a minimum, [[WP:CIVILITY]], [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:OWN]], [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], [[WP:BLUDGEON]], [[WP:STONEWALL]], and possibly [[WP:CANVAS]]. That's quite a package to be hauling into talk space repeatedly, even if I take for granted your position that these are each, as a statistical matter, behaviours found only in a small fraction of your overall interactions.   If nothing else, there is at least a recurrent pattern here of needlessly inflammatory tone during disputes and at least occasional proclivity to flood and dominate discussions. {{PB}}And let me be clear about my motivation in commenting here: I would just as soon preserve your purported subject matter expertise (in areas for which, believe me, I recognize the need). That said, it cannot come at the cost of allowing you to continue to think that you can use that expertise (and/or high-volume, rhetorically aggressive strategies) as a cudgel in disputes, in the manner you apparently seem comfortable with right now. I'm taking the time to say this to you as someone uninvolved in the underlying disputes because I hope it will convince you of what this situation looks like to such a community member. It is very difficult to substantiate a "Yes, I occasionally do these things, but proportionally not very often" position, and even if you could, it would be, at best, a very imperfect approach to alleviating the particular concerns raised here.  I think you would do better to consider acknowledging some of the issues and the need to adjust your approach.   ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 04:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::What you're seeing here are cherry-picked quotes, devoid of context, from a few aggrieved parties (and those they've found by digging through my edit history and pinging to summon here to pile on their anger) who are emphasizing and inflating how they feel they've been wronged while avoiding discussing their own actions. It's a one-sided approach intended to do something, anything, to keep me from, say, talking about sourcing, which we're all supposed to do.
:::::For example, there's a diff from last year that the OP found from [[Mami Wata]]. While obscure outside of certain subcultural circles, this article is a constant target for scrubbing and ideological drive-by editing, and I've been instrumental and keeping the article from going back to just outright, blatant historical revisionism, and keeping it grounded in [[WP:RS]]. At one point I even rewrote the article to align with GA requirements. Cherry picking a diff from that process, totally devoid of context, is just axe-grinding. Just look at the edit history of that article and see what it was then and what it was now (and it's an interesting topic, you may find), and repeated attempts at scrubbing.
:::::Now, the OP neglects to mention, for example, that they had totally misattributed a claim about the OED's etymology of ''bad'' and put it in the lead summary of the FA article, and this is the matter from which their apparently boiling bad blood stems. Nobody checked it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_475#Regarding_an_interpretation_of_an_OED_entry but I bothered to do so]. As you can see there, eventually they admitted to not having access to the source at all (!), despite putting it in the article (and its introduction), but that bad blood has been there since. (I'd personally ''thank'' someone for correcting something I put in an article like that but that's just me.) Several editors took issue with the article's sourcing and this caused the OP to eventually make a featured article review but the editor has barely participated ([[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1|link]]). There are a lot of examples like this and I am a stickler for sourcing (shouldn't we all be?), in part because I believe an article can always be improved.
:::::It is super easy to go through someone's edit history, cherry pick and selectively edit handful of quotes and make them look as bad as possible here, while leaving stuff out that, say, shows where the fuel to trawl through another user editor's edit history from 2016 onward like this is coming from.
:::::I'm lucky I wasn't gone for another week or two so that I could respond to these claims that so carefully selected to paint me as malicious as possible. To be clear, I cannot make anyone do anything here and I cannot magically make people with expertise in this or that area appear, but I think I can comment on the desire to have it when I am finding people inventing what linguistics sources say or avoiding complex etymologies crucial to an article on a historical linguistics topics. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 05:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:i have been mostly quietly watching this debacle for months, as it involves topics i'm interested in - i've written and deleted a lot of comments, because of how much of a time sink it'd be to get involved. i'd add here, regarding Bæddel/bædling, that numerous editors have taken issue with bloodofox's aggressive approach -  [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]], [[User:UndercoverClassicist|UndercoverClassicist]], [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]], [[User:Tim riley|Tim riley]], [[User:AirshipJungleman29|AirshipJungleman29]], among others (see these sections on the talk page [[Talk:Bæddel and bædling#Article should not have reached "featured" status in this state|1]], [[Talk:Bæddel and bædling#Need to clearly list all instances in Old English|2]], [[Talk:Bæddel and bædling#c-SchroCat-20250418082900-Recent_changes|3]], [[Talk:Bæddel and bædling#Removal of numerous WP:RS, reinstitution of correct dates, etc.|4]], [[Talk:Bæddel and bædling#OED misrepresented in article lead|5]] in particular). these editors haven't taken issue with the concept that an FA can be improved upon, especially by a subject-matter expert, they are pushing back on bloodofox's particular edits and their battering-ram attitude. bloodofox is simply not interested in listening to constructive criticism. i think this can be effectively contrasted with their interactions with ImaginesTigers at Talk:Odin, where bloodofox shuts down all of the suggested changes with more condescension and aspersions ([[Special:Diff/1294869914|1]], [[Special:Diff/1294966446|2]], [[Special:Diff/1294968259|3]], etc.). at Bæddel/bædling they say {{tq|nobody needs to ask for permission to add and correct WP:RS [...] A healthy, functional system would welcome improvements and additional sources to articles that make it to FA rather than discourage them.}} ([[Special:Diff/1286181463|link]]) that's true - ImaginesTigers did not need permission to improve the Odin article (which is not an FA) but they chose to discuss and propose changes on the talk page beforehand, only to be met with walls of text denigrating not only their work, but their competence. a pretty clear double standard, in my view. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 02:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:I am just reading [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&oldid=1294994441 the talk page as of right now] and I have to say bloodofox comes off terribly. The entire talk page is:
:# bloodofox: "This page is terrible! It should never have passed FA! I'm going to totally rewrite it to get it into a usable state!"
:# Everyone else: "We don't know what you're talking about, your demands don't make sense in context, your attempts to rewrite everything are only making things worse, please stop and discuss"
:# bloodofox (ignoring them): "This page is terrible! It should never have passed FA! I'm going to totally rewrite it to get it into a usable state!"
:(etc etc)
:If someone were to propose a pageban for bloodofox at [[Bæddel and bædling]] I would not hesitate to support it. And if they do this regularly I'd probably support more sweeping sanctions too. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 03:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::I am one of several who have taken issue with sourcing on the page. In fact, [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1|there are several of us discussing a variety of issues with the page, especially its sources, right here]]. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 03:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh I was well aware of that FAR when I said what I said. What actually happened is that you had to be dragged to any kind of consensus forming mechanism other than either unilaterally rewriting the article or complaining about it, and then when that happened some other people agreed with you. But you don't get any credit for that, because it didn't happen because of anything you did.
:::That honestly just makes me think your previous behavior was even worse: if it was motivated by worries that a broader consensus might be even more clearly against you that's still bad but understandable. But instead, it was helpful for the position you were trying to argue, which means you were just being stubborn for no good reason.
:::This looks to me to be a classic case of [[WP:BRIE]]: whether or not what you say is right, if what you're actually doing about it is directly counterproductive to the goal you're trying to accomplish you're not actually improving the encyclopedia in any meaningful way. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 06:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Well, you might add the result of "Featured Article Review" to your summary above. And that's a pretty vicious response to a straightforward talk page discussion about sourcing between several people. Me initiating discussion led to the FAR, which I discovered after being gone a while. I'm now sure how it's "counterproductive" to find and discuss and ideally correct sourcing matters, especially on an FA. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 06:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:Having expert contributors like Bloodofox who are actually willing to put the work in and repeatedly correct errors added by uninformed editors is genuinely incredible. Bloodofox's sometimes forceful tone is unsurprising given what he's forced to put up with in order to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia while getting basically nothing in return. Other expert editors like Austronesier have spoken of their frustration of having to repeatedly deal with uninformed editors. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Austronesier&diff=prev&oldid=1285839371] People who write bad work deserve to be forcefully criticised for it, no matter if it has gone through a flawed FAC process. Bloodofox really knows what he's talking about and it would be a great loss to the encyclopedia to lose him. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 02:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::That's rather [[begging the question]], don't you think? As has been well-established in this thread, most editors who've looked at this situation, including those with subject-matter expertise, think that there is no glaring issue with the article in question. Rather, Bloodofox has been insisting up and down that the whole article is biased because of activist editors and activist sources, and has decided it is beneath him to provide any evidence for these claims. Instead, we are apparently supposed to take his word for it that he knows better than everyone else who's analyzed the sources. I'm not sure what leads you to conclude that he is the one protecting Wikipedia from inaccuracies here, when the weight of opinions among participants in the content dispute suggests that he is in fact trying to remove well-sourced material. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 02:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Tamzin is completely right here, but even then, the whole premise of what {{u|Hemiauchenia}} says is wrong. No, editors who write "bad" content do {{em|not}} deserve to be treated uncivilly -- every expert editor started out as a novice one. On {{green|what he's forced to put up with in order to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia while getting basically nothing in return}} -- we're all volunteers; we all sign up to putting our work in and getting nothing, except warm fuzzy feelings, in return. We all come across work that we don't think is up to snuff, and editors that we don't think have the same expertise as we do. [[WP:CIVIL|In those situations, we must be kind, civil, and collegial.]] That is policy and pillar: if an editor fails to abide by it, no amount of expertise is an excuse. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 07:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:Bloodofox can be an irascible curmudgeon. He is also an editor of almost incalculable value to mythology and linguistics. That is an area that I often browse but dare not edit. It is gratifying to see someone as passionate as he is about accuracy and precision. Does he sometimes take things a little too personally? Sure. By the same token, some of his interlocutors could stand to take his objections for what they are, and not let themselves get wound up. We’re all here for the same purpose at the end of the day. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 21:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I was pinged at this discussion. I agree with Generalissima. Being frank, I'm involved in 2 disputes with [[User:Bloodofox|bloodofox]] right now and both have been among the worst editing experiences of my time here. bloodofox is not interested, at all, in collaboration, unless you agree with them. The stuff about the FAR sucks but honestly, it wasn't my fight, so I was able to approach it with some distance and not get too wound up. But I have been working, since April, on a complete rewrite of [[Odin]] (see it at [[User:ImaginesTigers/sandbox|my sandbox]]). Since April I have left Talk updates concerning my approach and progress. It was completely silent until he turned up, within a week of our FAR exchange, to tell me how much it sucks. It doesn't suck: it removes excessive primary sourcing; provides actual, excellent scholarship. At every possible turn, they was condescending, rude, and uncivil. I tried to keep a cool head; you can decide whether I did: [[Talk:Odin#Update on proposal]]. I'll even poison the well against myself: they describe my responses as {{Tq|vindictive}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294968259 diff], for what I don't know—I started work on this months before learning who they were); they tell me to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294972215 stop wasting time with this nonsense]" (the nonsense is in question: doubling the references; 30+ explanatory footnotes acknowledging complexity; tens of hours of loving labour on a cool project that excited me).
* I believe the best summary I can provide of the goal-post moving, unwillingness to collaborative, and poor grasp of the material is [[Talk:Odin#c-ImaginesTigers-20250611115100-Bloodofox-20250610224100|my most recent response]]. 
** Edit: I’ll let others decide whether [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odin#c-Bloodofox-20250612034800-Bloodofox-20250610224100|bloodofox’s latest response]] actually responds to the demonstration of goalpost moving (see [[WP:Bring me a rock]]). Obviously I don’t think so but there’s no point in me responding.  

:They edited this later to "this defensive nonsense" ([[Talk:Odin#c-Bloodofox-20250610224100-ImaginesTigers-20250610222400|current]]), which is not better—how do you respond anything but defensively when someone is condescending to you with no idea what your qualifications are? Subtle hints of theirs—{{Tq|There are scholars on this site, although they prefer to remain anonymous}}—but hostile to even the idea that I might ''want'' feedback from an expert (there's nothing in my sandbox cited to "Scholar I Emailed"?). My plan was to take it to GA and then FAC, where it would obviously be reviewed thoroughly. Right now, they believe {{Tq|the current article has been revised and reviewed many times over, including my editors who are experts in this topic}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294884520 diff]; originally written as {{Tq|Again, everything here is air-tight}}, which I think is very defensive concerning a suggestion that content needs further improvement). 

[[User:VeryRarelyStable|VeryRarelyStable]] pinged me with this message: {{Tq|@ImaginesTigers Welcome to the Norse mythology Wikipedia editing experience.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294895600 diff]) when the discussion started. Not a great sign from the start. 

Some examples from the discussion (linked at the top of my post).

* {{Tq|We're not here to mislead the public.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294884470 diff]): Subtly indicating that I am, in fact, here to mislead the public)
* {{Tq|Honestly, you need to be far more familiar with this material before getting into a dispute about any element of it.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294966446 diff]): My responses are long because they are wrong, but the topic is complex. An introduction from Faulkes does not override PCRN consensus.
* {{Tq|If you were familiar with the material}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294966446 diff]): More condescension. I am, but it's none of anyone's business, and we should be focusing on material, not editors.
* {{Tq|Again, anyone who has read Ynglinga saga knows}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294884876 diff]): More condescension. Obviously implying something about me (i.e., rephrasing this as {{tq|This editor hasn't read Ynglinga saga}} would be a personal attack}} If someone picked up work on an important article in my area, I would never write comments like these. Frankly, it feels like trying to make me angry was the point—either that or there is just no grasp of collaborating to improve content.

One of the great things about Wikipedia is meant to be collaborating with others and improving content. I genuinely love being told when I am wrong. bloodofox is argumentative, abrasive, and the prospect of collaboration seems to make them mad if you have different views than theirs, or challenge theirs. It feels like they want people to exhaust folks so they'll leave him and their content alone, when ''all'' of Wikipedia needs improvement: [[Wikipedia:COMPLETIONISM|my goal is the destruction of my purpose]]. I saw their responses on [[Talk:Odin]] as [[Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling]] and [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content|WP:Ownership]] when I was responding. I did not even slightly focus on that when responding to him (he still thought I was "vindictive")—I focused entirely on their arguments, spending time to respond with quoted scholarship, and they repeatedly cite their interpretations of ''primary sources''. (I asked him not to twice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294947018 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294947018 here]). Baselessly accuses me of {{Tq|downplaying the historical record}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294870080 diff])—if you are interested (and it is interestingly), please compare the mainspace and sandbox versions on the historical record ([[Odin#Attestations|Live]]; [[User:ImaginesTigers/sandbox#Early attestations|Sandbox]]). An explicit goal with my rework was to {{Tq|support all information currently on the page and much more}}.

After feeling pretty driven this morning, I felt more dejected as the day went on. I was in the middle of choosing which wikibreak template to put up when I got pinged to this. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 23:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:First, the reason is involved in "two disputes" with me is because this editor has been following me around on a bunch of articles and injecting themselves in response to me into them, typically (but not always entirely) in disagreement (beyond [[Odin]], where they probably first encountered me, there was recently [[Bæddel and bædling]] and now [[Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2025_June#Braucherei|the Braucherei move discussion]]). Not sure exactly what that is about as I only vaguely recalled the user's name, but I'm suspecting [[Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding]], and we'd probably interacted before at some point in the past.
:Anyway, rather than contribute to it, right now the user aims to replace our current [[Odin]] article with a draft they're writiong (although the current article has been reviewed, added to, and edited by many, many editors without any major issue). As the article has no apparent issues that an expansion can't fix, it's perplexing why this is.
:And to be clear, I am just one of several authors of our [[Odin]] article. I pointed out a bunch of issues in the draft, some of them quite major, referred the editor to some crucial sources, and the reaction has been increasingly hostile. However, they were pinged by the OP to come here to pile on and so here we are reading a bunch of cherry-picked quotes. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 05:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:: Respectfully, this stalking allegation only exists in your head and shows you can't AGF. I posted at Odin in April 2025; my first response to you was at the FAR was on 5 June 2025. It would be more compelling for ''me'' to argue that ''you followed me to Odin'' after our exchange at FAR ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294869914 June 10]), but it assumes extraordinary bad faith so I didn't make that argument. 
:: These are unfalsifiable allegations. Obviously I can't prove I wasn't following you around and you can't prove the reverse, but I feel the timeline paints the opposite picture. Instead, my descriptions of your conduct evidence the things you said and how they made me feel; you haven't responded to any of those beyond trying to discredit me with allegations of stalking (above) and saying that {{green|This editor usually edits video game articles and things are a bit different}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295164370 here]). As highlighted by dozens of diffs by various participants, discrediting content positions by implying lack of qualification, or suggesting that you are uniquely qualified, is a frequent strategy for you. 
::* I'm relatively confident I discovered [[Talk:Bæddel and bædling]] because of my previous collaborations with {{u|UndercoverClassicist}}. I probably saw the discussion through ''their'' contributions and, intrigued by allegations of an "activist source" ([[Routledge]]) My first post there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1288831929 providing a source to another editor] on May 2025, who was questioning about the source you repeatedly cited as problematic, because they couldn't access it, for which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1290404912 they thanked me]. We never interacted until the June FAR. Surely providing the source you are questioning is ''helpful'' to you! That you read bad faith into this—stalking and hounding!—does not reveal anything about me or support the extraordinary (probably indeffable) allegations you make here.
::* I don't understand why you're raising my response at the move request—I disclosed that this ANI thread alerted me to its existence ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMove_review%2FLog%2F2025_June&diff=1295160005&oldid=1295141346 diff]). I don't understand how is different, for example, to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295137695 an editor offering you support] here at ANI and then making [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295147045 an appropriately disclosed post] at Talk:Odin. Wikihounding is an attempt to {{green|repeatedly confront or inhibit their work}}, but my move discussion vote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMove_review%2FLog%2F2025_June&diff=1295160005&oldid=1295141346 basically agrees with you]... You have a genuinely charmed conception of Wikihounding.
:: It is impossible for me to respond now with an assumption of good faith given the underlying faulty premise of my bad faith. It takes me ages to write a response but minutes for you to make baseless  allegations (i.e., these editors are activists; this one's a canvasser; that one's unqualified; that one is both unqualified to edit and stalker) (cf. the diffs I have repeatedly cited). As was the case at Odin, I find it hard to see how engaging with you is productive. I believe the FAR shows a genuine good-faith effort by me to engage with participants, including positions that differ from mine ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FB%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling%2Farchive1&diff=prev&oldid=1294244948 e.g., here], where I was essentially advocating for your position (!) out of frustration that the debate was going on at FAR (wrong venue) and your unproductive manner of collaboration/consensus gathering. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:Since I've been mentioned, I can attest to similar behaviour from bloodofox on mythology / folklore related articles on several occasions; especially on Norse mythology articles, but also, and earlier, [[Talk:Phoenix (mythology)#User Revert-Warring to Restore Misinformation, Unreferenced Material, and Misattribution|this discussion]] and [[Talk:Phoenix (mythology)#Requested move 31 October 2019|the following discussion]] at [[Talk:Phoenix (mythology)]] in 2019. Remarks from bloodofox in those discussions include:
:*{{tq|Unfortunately, as is all too often the case on the project, this has evidently awoken a revert-warrior watcher (in this case VeryRarelyStable), emerging from their slumber only to push aside core guidelines like [[WP:PROVEIT]] to aggressively reinsert all the accrued misinformation, misattributed material, and otherwise entirely unreferenced material...}}
:(Of note: bloodofox didn't just mention me here or use my username; they pinged me, to make sure I would see this comment.)
:*{{tq|Where are these users when the nonsense is inserted on to the article in the first place, I wonder?}}
:*{{tq|Did you ''read'' the Bennu section? Do you understand how the Bennu is so closely connected to the Greek concept of the Phoenix? How new are you to this subject? Are you familiar with the concept of the ''analogue'' in folklore studies, and what that means, exactly? Do you understand the crucial distinction between describing something as ''observed'' and not flatly stating it as fact, and why someone would do that? If not, please brush up on these topics before responding further, as otherwise you're wasting my time and yours.}}
:*{{tq|It seems that you've chosen to get into a dispute about the content of this article without being particularly familiar with the topic itself—why would you think that was a good idea?}}
:*{{tq|[''quotes a side remark of mine''] has to be one of the funniest unintentionally humorous quotes I've read on English Wikipedia over the past decade or so, I'll give you that.}}
:*{{tq|If you've scratched your edit-warring itch, I'll go ahead and start correcting the article. Otherwise we're going to need to elevate this, as I'm not keen on letting this article deteriorate into a bunch of ill-considered nonsense, and my Wikipedia time is limited—I'd rather not spend it explaining fundamentals to edit warriors.}}
:*{{tq|If you want to contribute to this article, start by finding a copy of the Van der Broek book used throughout this article. In the mean time, you're wasting your time — and mine.}}
:*{{tq|...please kindly take a break and return when you're calm.}}
:This should go without saying, but in case it doesn't: I'm not quoting these to relitigate the content dispute from six years ago, but to confirm others' observations of the level of incivility and discourtesy to which disputes with bloodofox can descend. I will admit I did not respond with perfect patience.
:My disagreements with bloodofox at the Norse mythology articles, much like ImaginesTigers', have centred chiefly on the issue of how to communicate effectively to Wikipedia's non-scholarly readership. As they stand, all these articles remind me of a molecular biologist I once met, who was tasked with teaching second-year dental students some molecular biology. Rather than simplify his subject, he threw postgraduate-level concepts at them for fifty minutes at a stretch and looked wearied beyond endurance when they struggled to follow. I gather he was in fact a world-leading researcher in his field, but his lecturing method did nothing to convey his knowledge to his students. All he did was baffle them.
:This is precisely why Wikipedia needs non-expert contributions as well as expert. Experts are closely familiar with their own subject matter, but that very familiarity blinds them to how ''un''familiar that subject matter is to wider audiences. That is why I cannot countenance bloodofox's habitual insinuations that only experts in these subjects should be suffered to edit them.
:—[[User:VeryRarelyStable|VeryRarelyStable]] 05:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::Seriously, you've been nursing this grudge since 2019? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_%28folklore%29&type=revision&diff=922768146&oldid=922767081 Back when you were doing spiteful stuff like this]? You were indeed edit-warring and inserting [http://gnosis.org/welcome.html stuff like this into the article], and the article is better because you ran into resistance and source quality pushback. I encourage editors to look at the whole discussion for context. This is another editor pinged from my edit history from the past decade eager to come and grind an axe (the whole paragraph was cited to Van der Broek's 1972 overview, btw). [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 05:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:I don't have too much to add here, but am in broad agreement with the points made by {{u|Generalissima}}, and with those made by {{u|ImaginesTigers}} and the summary offered by {{u|Sawyer777}}. I do think it's worth bringing up a repeated issue with asserting bold claims -- for instance, that an article's sourcing is terrible and (to quote above) "falsified", providing little or no evidence for them, and not engaging with discussion that suggests these concerns are (at best) rather overblown. Something strange seems to have happened on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling/archive1 the Baedling FAR] which means that I can't pull the diff, but see my comments there about Julius Zupitza -- this whole sourcing thing has hinged on a fairly tiny "error", which is no longer part of the article text, and Bloodofox has offered no evidence to substantiate the rather forceful accusations of sloppiness, dishonesty and so on that have followed. Similarly, they have refused to engage with several editors pointing them to appropriate means of addressing their concerns and getting consensus for the changes they want, while also complaining that nobody will allow them to do that. It's hard to see this all as good-faith behaviour, and even harder to see it as a net positive for the encyclopaedia. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 06:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::Actually, we ended up in Featured Article Review, and the discussion there has continued, which is where you were pinged from.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_475#Regarding_an_interpretation_of_an_OED_entry The "tiny error" was a total misattribution of a source on an FA that made no mention of a scholar, which the OP eventually admitted they didn't have access to]. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 06:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::That linked page makes interesting reading -- once again, you have various editors advising you to discuss things in the appropriate forum, build consensus for proposed changes, and avoid making disputes personal. Even if [[WP:BRIE|you think you're right in the points of fact]], that would certainly prompt me to think about the way I approach these things, especially given that it's the third or fourth page where different people are telling you exactly the same thing, and indeed now that we're at ANI. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 06:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Getting to FAR is in my opinion progress (which the OP initiated before going to ANI). [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 08:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
*All I can say as someone who participates in move review on a frequent basis that the section at [[Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten]] was ''completely'' unacceptable, especially considering move review was suggested very early on in the discussion. Closers sometimes get things wrong, and we have procedures to look at whether they are wrong - belittling a closer for their move is very serious indeed. Please note I have no other interaction with this user that I am immediately aware of. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 07:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
**Having just read through [[Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten]], all I can say about the approach is 'wow...'. Staggering. Pinging {{u|Paine_Ellsworth}} as being the target for some of the rather unpleasant barbs thrown in that thread. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 07:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
**:{{tq|Honestly, while you've to date contributed nothing whatsoever to this or related articles, I will say you're probably one fo the single most condescending editors I've encountered on the site (and that's saying something).}} is pretty staggering, IMHO. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 08:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
**:*I did find the editor to be extremely condescending and the editor did not contribute to the article, which I had just rewritten. As we see on this talk page, it's fine to tell an editor you find them condesending. I requested to know exactly what this editor's reasoning was for closing the vote and was met with, for example, sarcasm ("fine actually!"). Another editor recommended a move review, [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 June|which I then initiated]]. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 08:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
**:*:Concerning {{purple|As we see on this talk page, it's fine to tell an editor you find them condesending}}. I disagree very strongly. At FAR, myself and others repeatedly requested you to stop bringing up conduct concerns outside of the appropriate venue (i.e., ANI) because it was a distraction and a waste of other's times—"I deserve to be mad because I once got a death threat" is obviously not a good discussion of content with reference to the FA criteria (the same stuff we see with Liz in this thread). Others did the same. You were rude and condescending (despite having the academic background you seem desperate to collaborate with), to I replied that you should explore that at ANI and ''not'' FAR. You ignored my request, and the request of a coordinator, and did it again (this is textbook [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning]]). 
**:*:You are either desperate to fight with others or can't help it. You repeatedly make reference to people as battlegrounders and then become inordinately mad when someone kindly disagrees (which, as we see here, is often). I even noted that your response strangely quoted my response to you but you responded, in line, to the comment about Essjay that I didn't repeat because you got so mad over something so minor. 
**:*:It's a persistent notion, unique to you, that everyonen who disagrees with you is out to get you, as Tim riley said: {{green|This looks like a case of "Everybody's out of step except our Willie". I have reread the article and the FAC exchanges and see no reason to attempt to rewrite the text to accommodate the uncited assertions of one hitherto uninvolved editor}} ([[Talk:Bæddel and bædling#c-Tim riley-20250418071800-Borsoka-20250418070800|here]]). There is much more demonstrated interest from you overpowering others' views than gathering any sort of consensus. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 09:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
**:*::I would, BTW, recommend anyone diving into this mess to read [[Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten]] in its entirety. I was actually surprised at what an unpleasant read it was - and I'm 1,000% uninvolved - couldn't give a hootin' toot about the subject matter or the close. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 10:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
**:*:::[[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 June|The ensuring move review]] also fits the same pattern -- lots of uninvolved editors saying that, regardless of the facts of the case, Bloodofox's conduct was out of order. To me, it's becoming clear that social pressure and gentle persuasion are not proving enough for them to see this and make changes: I think the reply below to SnowRise is encouraging, but if their entire takeaway from this thing is "I need to stop asking people about their qualifications", they have missed the vast majority of the point. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 10:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
**:*::::I'll also point out that about an hour after they made that reply to SnowRise, they ended up [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Bloodofox-20250612080500-SchroCat-20250612074000|defending the exact thing they'd just owned up to]]. not really sure what to make of that. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 10:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
***{{to|SchroCat}} thank you so much for the ping''!'' Over years of closing discussions I've developed a pretty tough hide, so :bloodofox:'s comments, seemingly contrary to civility concerns, had no effect on me. We see here that such has come back to bite them unsurprisingly. I will only say that none of us know what has been going on behind the scenes over past weeks with our fellow editors, which should make AGFing a bit easier for us. I wish every editor here, to include :bloodofox:, a high-quality life and better and better times''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>12:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)</small>
* {{ec}} I also have little to add to this, except to say that Bloodofox was—regardless of the rights or wrongs of his opinions on the ''Bæddel'' matter—overly aggressive and unpleasant to deal with. I had no history with the article or its FAC progress, but did see the threads on the talk page. When Bloodofox [[Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#Need_to_clearly_list_all_instances_in_Old_English|suggested the article should list all the uses of the word]] in Old English, I pointed out that this would be against [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] Bloodofox's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1286186396 second response was to ask] "{{tq|Are you new to this kind of topic?}}", which is inappropriate when dealing with how content should be handled on WP, regardless of the topic. The aggressive responses included misleading comments, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1286188804 outright] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1286480210 lies] and the toxic approach of trying to bully people away from a subject by asking "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1286481954 To clarify your understanding of this material, what is your background in linguistics?]" I had expressed no opinion on any of the substantive matters being discussed on the page, simply on whether having a list of uses of the word in English would be encyclopaedic unless it was accompanied by sufficient text to provide context that made the approach encyclopaedic. For trying to ensure the article kept within the bounds of what we would consider high-quality content, I was met with BATTLEGROUND reactions and a toxic approach that was repeated across several threads of the talk page towards several other editors. Anyone who didn't fall in line with Bloodofox's "suggestions" was attacked, which is completely inappropriate. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 07:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
*:It is fine to ask if someone is new to something and if they've got a background in the article's topic so that we can talk about sourcing. Now, you may take issue with my comments and criticisms all you like, but please don't falsely accuse me of lying. It is indeed true that these sources had not been checked before the article was passed through FA and that one of those sources was a major linguistics source on a linguistics article. I know not only because I personally began checking them but also  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_475#Regarding_an_interpretation_of_an_OED_entry because the OP and primary author eventually admitted that they never even had access to it in the first place]. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bloodofox|Bloodofox]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bloodofox|contribs]]) 08:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)</small>
*::Given your toxic approach to discussions, I have no wish to have any further interaction with you, but I stand by what I have said and will repeat that when someone is pointing to the MOS about how inappropriate it would be to have an list of words without context, it's not a question of background in the topic, but how to best present what the sources say within the confines of the encyclopaedic approach outlined in the MOS. I am sorry that you are still unable to understand this, but I really do not wish to continue any discussion with you. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 08:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::Accusing someone of lying is [[Wikipedia:Casting aspersions]]. This is the second time I have experienced this editor make a bunch of accusations and then declare they will have no further discussion. But to be clear, nobody was proposing that we just list a bunch of words (??), rather it'd ideally be a typical paragraph with appropriate sourcing and discussion from relevant [[WP:RS]].  [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 08:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I've been briefly involved in Baeddel and Baedling.  I get the sense that Bloodofox is ''probably right'' - but the amount of text means I would have to spend a considerable time just to understand the discussions, let alone do significant reading.  In these types of situation it's really important to find an approach that allows all editors to engage.  I think it unfortunate that this article is such a bone of contention, the subject "Alternative Sexualities in Early English Society" can't hang off the evidence from these two words, like reconstructing a dinosaur from one tooth.  I hope that the article can be brought to a better state, but there will need to be a different, and less combative, approach.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 09:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC).</small><br /> 

===Comments from Bloodofox===
I've been here nearly 20 years and I have happily collaborated with thousands of editors on thousands of articles, including many GA articles. And I still write to those standards when I don't go through the process, like my recent total rewrite of the article [[Braucherei]].

I have volunteered and continue to volunteer to write, rewrite, and make many thousands of edits over that time in typically underserved and often dense historical linguistics, folklore studies, and new religious moment topics. I've gladly improved thousands of articles related to these matters. Unfortunately, it's inevitable that axe-grinding from this or that editor who takes issue with my critiques of a source or their edit will pop up now and then. This typically involves going through my edit history, taking a bunch of quotes out of context (sometimes from years ago but often in exchanges they had no involvement in), and presenting them in the most ill-intentioned way possible.

I also sometimes (rather foolishly) work in hot-button topics, and rarely I'll get anonymous threats or, worse yet, editors very rarely will get so angry they try to stalk and harm me offline ([https://www.litromagazine.com/every-saturday-litro-magazine-publishes-essays-that-reach-far-beneath-the-surface/wrathful-wiccan-wikipedians/ like these two who attempted to get some random person totally unrelated to me fired from their job]. And all because I added secondary sources to Wikipedia  [[Carl_Raschke#Satanic_ritual_abuse_moral_panic,_modern_popular_culture_and_new_religious_movements|discussing the academic Carl Raschke's involvement in the Satanic Panic]]).

So forgive me if I think that situations like these are in the scheme of things small potatoes. But do I wish these editors would be more forthcoming.
First, let's take a quick look at that mention of the AfD 2024. I had completely forgotten about it, but I guess this is a fishing trip, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sumarr_and_Vetr|so it bears pointing out that I was correct and the AfD was a snowball keep for exactly the reasons I pointed out]. In fact, the editor had not read the article and was not familiar with the material (surely an issue when trying to have the article deleted), which is why it was such a straightforward, snowball keep.

When it comes to {{ping|Generalissima}}, this is in reality just a content dispute over an article Generalissima wrote. The article made it to FA but it has a variety of big issues that I and several others have raised, [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1|and it is now in Feature Article review]]. There I provided a ton of edits and sources (edits that were mass-reverted by, for example, Generalissima, so it is weird to see this user complain about me using the talk page to discuss). I also immediately noticed that the Generalissima [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_475#Regarding_an_interpretation_of_an_OED_entry|had falsified a claim about a very important source for English etymology, the Oxford English Dictionary (they finally claimed "I don't have access to it and simply asked a friend")]. All indications are that none of the FA approvers checked it or a variety of other sources on the article. Now this editor is apparently out for my (ox)blood, so they're doing things like selectively discussing my involvement in the notorious [[Falun Gong]] article (for editors who have not had the (ahem) pleasure of editing in that minefield, [[Falun_Gong#Media_influence_operations|at least one peer-reviewed article has discussed the new religious movement's former control of the article (Lewis 2018)]] and many an account has been blocked while attempting to push the Falun Gong's positions on that and related articles, like [[The Epoch Times]] and [[Shen Yun]]. Also super weird to see stuff from 2016 getting brought up here. It's depressing to realize that was a decade ago.

{{ping|ImaginesTigers}} wants to replace our current [[Odin]] article with one the editor is writing rather than contribute to our current one (which can always use expansion and to which many have contributed to and thoroughly checked). The editor is new to the topic and, unfortunately, their draft contains numerous odd and blatantly incorrect statements like "[Odin] is the only god among the æsir depicted as riding a horse". Recently, after far too much discussion that would have been resolved by just going to the (core) sources I suggested, the editor had to walk (trot?) it back, which I didn't think was a big deal, but it seems they did. This editor usually edits video game articles and things are a bit different when editing material with hundreds of years of scholarship behind it. I've found this editor to be quite hostile when asked to check this or that source instead (and they've a few times now made odd and unverifiable claims about interacting with this or that scholar off of Wikipedia), but who cares. Let's stick to the sources and get on to editing. (And for the record, the full quote of "stop wasting time with this nonsense" is actually "Please stop wasting time with this nonsense [that is, the false claim "[Odin] is the only god among the æsir depicted as riding a horse"] and just crack open Simek's handbook (and Lindow's handbook) and turn your eyes to the relevant entries like the rest of us do." On the upside, the editor finally did exactly that.)

In short, these are all content disputes. Rather than just working on the articles and sorting out whatever issue is being raised, these editors have invested a lot of time and effort going through my edit history to dig out quotes, often leaving out context (like the fact the Baucherei, an article I wrote, is in move review and that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Archive_29#h-Proposed_title_change_of_article_Pow-wow_(folk_magic)_to_Braucherei-20250309012000 I was commenting on another editor's canvassing] — a situation that involves none of these editors and has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2025_June resulted in an ongoing move review]). I suggest instead focusing on improving content in dispute rather than cherry picking a bunch of quotes and trying to drag anyone I ended up having a disagreement with over the past who knows how many years here. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 03:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:Well, Bloodofox, since you have decades of experience, what is a way to keep content disputes from becoming personal? How can we critique content and sources without editors, themselves, feeling criticized? It's a cliche but how can we keep this about content and not our contributors? Since this is a recurring problem that comes up on ANI all of the time, any ideas that any editor has would be welcome here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::For me, it's especially a tough one when editors outright invent sources, I discover it, and then they don't want to talk about sourcing (like the OP) or demonstrate a lack of familiarity with a topic but ''insist'' they're doing it ''their way'' (happens).
::Honestly, the best answer to: "Are you new to this topic?" Is just ''yes'' or ''no'', because then we can work with that. If someone asked me if I were new or unfamiliar with something, I'd honestly answer it because why not? We're ideally both working on an article and sharing sources.
::To be clear, I know nothing about these people, and given my disturbing experiences here with people actively trying to harm me "IRL" for daring to add fully BLP-compliant WP:RS about them, I very strongly encourage - outright urge - people to not tell anyone who they are or provide any kind of specifics about their background beyond being extremely vague. However, it can be useful to just say, hey, I know this topic super well and I recommend this, or hey, I could use some more resources on this topic because I feel I could get a firmer grounding, so what do you have?
::None of it is personal. When people are clear where they're at and it's a topic I do know, I can get them sources, but if not, it is just an obstacle course where we're on the talk page for too long and for no good reason. Typically the article benefits from the heightened source scrutiny but some editors outright take it personally and can carry a grudge for quite a long time (meanwhile, having been here so long and focused so intensely on the articles, I have often forgotten their user names). [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 06:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, I didn't know about any threats that have come your way. I've had my share of abuse over the years and threats but it's the cliche, comical internet variety where it seems like the other person is 12 years old and is getting their phone taken away and just screaming at you. Nothing that caused me to feel like I'm actually in personal danger. If it did, it would color my experience here. But back to editing. I don't wonder a lot if people are telling me the truth, call me naive but I take folks at their word and generally it works out. Plus, I don't like living my life as a cynical person, it makes the experience of being an editor on Wikipedia less enjoyable and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Tomorrow is another day, more pages to review. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC
::::Yes, it probably impacts me more than I realize. Check out the Raschke stuff above as an example, and compare it to the talk page, if you find it interesting. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 07:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, two things here, BOO: 
::::1) It doesn't seem from the diffs presented that you are so much asking the question about their familiarity so much as speculating wildly about it, based on your assessment of their apparent facility with the given subject.  Now, there may be some selection bias in the diffs presented here in that respect, but even if we take the leap and presume there is, you're still making bold, un-sought-after, and unflattering guesswork assessments on some occasions. 
::::And 2) even if you were asking the question consistently, it is likely to be perceived by most of your fellow editors as a territorial and tedious behaviour.  These are the types of questions that most editors learn to avoid long before 20 years.  No answer to that question directly influences any editorial decision that is going to be made, so it is likely to be ascribed to being a cheap rhetorical ploy to undermine another editor's standing.  Let's also AGF and give you the benefit of the doubt that this is always all about you just trying to get a bearing on your fellow editors, despite it happening in the context of existing disputes.  Even if we grant you that presumption, I can tell you it certainly is not coming off that way, especially the way you seem to time and word them.  {{pb}}And I am telling you this as an uninvolved party looking at these instances dispassionately after the fact;  to those people who are actually interacting with you in these instances, those same comments certainly can't look any less like a challenge to the legitimacy of the ability to contribute of other parties who have offered positions contrary to your own.  If I am perfectly honest, Ox, these comments look like nothing quite so much as an invitation to a keyboard warrior dick measuring contest in what should be a no-dick zone--and an effort to [[argument from authority|argue from authority]].
:::So maybe just shelve this habit, especially as a threshold way of entering into dispute resolution.  You don't need to know about their backgrounds, much less guess at them.  You don't have the prerogative to be assured as to their level of expertise.  You should be assessing their arguments, same as you would advance your own: on the merits of the strength of the arguments, based on policy, sourcing, and pragmatics.  Please leave all of this extraneous assessment out of it.  Aside from the fact that it focuses on the wrong things and makes you look a lot more petty than you apparently realize, if we take your protestations for granted, there are lots of reasons why various editors do not like to get into personal disclosures of even the vague sort on project.  As someone who keeps citing off-project harassment as a reason we should consider this situation a comparatively trivial matter, I would think you would have more robust respect for these. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 06:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, you're right. I appreciate the measured and uninvolved feedback from you here. I'll do that. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 07:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you: I appreciate the observation being taken in the spirit it was intended. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 07:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
: '''Response:''' Usually, I'd be shocked if an ANI subject, in response to a thread outlining their history of condescension, belitting and aspersions, said {{purple|This editor usually edits video game articles}}, but I'm not. You literally can't stop condescending. (At least at ANI I can defend myself rather than wasting others' time with it at FAR, as I had to remind you twice there: I have produced 1 video game FA, as my first experiment in editing, about 5 years ago; my latest FA was ''[[Dracula]]''. My degrees—in fact no one's degrees—are any of your business for [[Essjay controversy|very good reason]] Attacking an editor's hobbies is a bizarre line of defence.) 
:* You say this is a content dispute, but the content dispute is in the place it belongs—a Talk page—and as it is a dispute I obviously reject your characterisation. The extraordinary focus on the content disputes here conveniently avoids the concerns regarding your unique style of collaboration. The closest thing to an acknowledgement of your conduct  problems (cf. every diff above) subtly shifts blame away from you and onto {{purple|hot-button topics}}. It isn't the topics that are hot-button, bloodofox. Your responses everywhere here are [[WP:IDHT]]. Your arguments at FAR are [[WP:IDLI]].
:* Your example of work at [[Braucherei]] is an illuminating one, I think, because 1) you edited it alone and 2) the moment [[User:Paine Ellsworth|Paine]] expressed gratitude, you attacked them ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABraucherei&diff=1293715963&oldid=1291065082 first diffs]) and later drew ire from multiple participants. SnowFire, who agreed with your content position (!), said of your conduct: {{green|I would suggest that a respectful challenge on grounds of no consensus for the new title would be far more likely to succeed than a dramatic, assume-bad-faith, denunciation of the closer}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Braucherei&diff=prev&oldid=1294104893 diff]); another wrote {{green|we don’t need to assume bad faith or anything underhanded. There are procedures for appealing. Follow them. We don’t need to get nasty}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Braucherei&diff=prev&oldid=1294911045 diff]). This doesn't cover the individuals accusing you of bludgeoning and casting aspersions there, too. Your comments that Netherzone and others are activists are reminiscent of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive326#Request concerning Bloodofox|AE warning]] you received. In what way is this a good example of positive collaboration? It proves the opposite: fine when allowed free reign; terrible the moment another editor is involved.
::* IMO, the unwillingness to use Wikipedia's processes (i.e., SnowFire and Pain's suggestions above) is a major problem here of wasting editor's time with disputes you don't want to move forward unless it is your way (cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-AirshipJungleman29-20250418105200-UndercoverClassicist-20250418104000 this comment] from AirshipJungleman29). At FAR, I spent time outlining appropriate dispute resolution methods for 5 possible complaints in 2 posts (e.g., [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1#c-ImaginesTigers-20250606072400-Bloodofox-20250605213200|here]]; please CTRL+F "RFC" or "DRN" or "RSN" on that page); as did {{u|UndercoverClassicist}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FB%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling%2Farchive1&diff=prev&oldid=1294045724 diff]). You ignored these, instead arguing and accusing others of {{purple|blockading}} you. (I even [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Bæddel_and_bædling/archive1#c-ImaginesTigers-20250606072400-Bloodofox-20250605213200 tried to advocate for your position] with another editor to try and move things forward.) You obstructed the resolution of your own dispute...
:* You called my responses "vindictive" at [[Talk:Odin]] and, at FAR, told me I wrote a {{purple|response aimed at critiquing me personally}} because I gently indicated the problems I'd worry about if I brandished my credentials within Wikipedia (i.e., the Essjay comment you described as an attack and asked me to {{purple|strike and refactor}}. I didn't strike or refactor them; I stand by them. I have done nothing but demonstrate civility in trying to understand your concerns. I wouldn't be drawn into a conversation about editorial conduct at FAR because it would waste others' time. Now, we're now at the appropriate venue for you to apologise or defend your statements. Your conduct at FAR towards me is obviously unrelated to Odin because you did most of this ''before'' replying to Odin.
: Incidentally, I want to be really clear: you did not initiate the FAR despite the suggestion to the contrary ({{purple|It is now at FAR}}); the nominator of this thread did, in my view with immense dignity, given your bludgeoning of the Talk... that gathered no consensus for a single change after a discussion with >11 participants (!). (Regarding the OED correction: it was, as others noted, a ''tiny'' issue that you overblew, [[Talk:Bæddel and bædling#c-UndercoverClassicist-20250420093700-Bloodofox-20250420093100|as others noted]], to make a wider point. You then kept going on about it well after the edition was fixed... because it's not about the content.) — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 09:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:: As an aside. The allegations above about canvassing ([[Special:PermanentLink/1281416430#Pow-wow (folk magic)|here]]) are useful indicators of your style of collaboration, and sit within a broader pattern of bad behaviour in my opinion. As I said in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-ImaginesTigers-20250611235700-User:bloodofox|my initial post]]: {{purple|bloodofox is not interested, at all, in collaboration, unless you agree with them}}. You frequently ping editors who will support you [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250605000000-Generalissima-20250604002100 here] at Talk:Bæddel and bædling. Your post to RSN obviously poisoning the well ([[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 475#c-Bloodofox-20250420023000-Regarding an interpretation of an OED entry|diff]]), which you were repeatedly called out for. It is hard for me to see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295183727 this edit to Talk:Odin] as anything but the same attempt at ''disrupting'' consensus gathering through discussion and [[WP:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 10:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::So I have a background with Norse mythology. It's one of those things you can't help but stumble across if you're an art critic with interests in both fantasy literature and political extremism who was raised by an anthropology professor. I will not be commenting about articles brought up here outside of those. But after reviewing the links provided what I will say is that :bloodofox: is effectively entirely correct regarding the literature at the articles in this set. I've also participated in edit discussions with :bloodofox: going years back with regard to articles about Norse mythology and about cryptids and what I've observed is that they have had a consistently sharp tongue. I'm sympathetic to the [[WP:CIV]] complaints and I do think it would be wise of :bloodofox: to take that feedback under advisement, to improve their adherence to [[WP:FOC]] and to avoid insulting other editors. However I think that there's a fair bit of over-egging of the problem here. While it's true that, on Wikipedia, being right isn't sufficient, I'd argue that being politely wrong is also insufficient. For an expert in the material, issues like treating the prose edda and the poetic edda as if they were the same work is such an elementary mistake that I can certainly also sympathize with :bloodofox:'s frustration in these circumstances. Wikipedia does not demand that editors be experts in their field to participate but, on the other foot, it should probably avoid chasing away experts just because they have sharp tongues. I would suggest an appropriate closure here would be a logged warning to adhere to [[WP:CIV]] and no more. A tban would be inappropriate because :bloodofox: contributes valuably in this set. A block would also be overkill. I would say that no boomerangs should also come out of these threads. We're supposed to be polite to each other here and raising civility complaints should not be actionable disruption. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::::And on another foot, if this were a [[three-legged race]], Wikipedia should probably avoid chasing away us regular folk, because of an expert with a sharp tongue, which appears is what has been happening. 2¢ to spare by [[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 13:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's in the "spin" we put on things... is it just a bit of a "sharp tongue", which some editors might see as "tough love"? or is it blatant  breakage of [[WP:5P4]], one of WP's 5 pillars? Stay with this reference work long enough and you'll see the entire spectrum between those two extremes. I look forward to reading the closer's statement. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>13:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)</small>
::::::You yourself said you had a thick skin, which you clearly needed in your encounter. Sharp tongue or overbearing rudeness, bludgeoning and intellectual bullying? That's not meant as a [[WP:PA]], it's the issue at the heart of all of this. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 13:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think, for me, what it comes down to is that sanctions are not supposed to be punitive but rather preventative. Do we think that :bloodofox:'s uncivility is sufficiently disruptive to require prevention? Based on the above discussion my tendency is to say no. Which is why I prefer a logged warning here. I've edited in articles they're active in long enough to recognize they don't always uphold [[WP:5P4]] the best- but they have been a critical asset to the maintenance of [[WP:5P1]] and [[WP:5P2]]. A logged warning would send the message to :bloodofox: that they need to make a change with regard to how they handle [[WP:CIV]] without risking losing the clear value they bring to the project. This is, in my opinion, an appropriate response because it acknowledges the problem and takes a step to prevent it from reoccurring without dipping into punishment. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I favor the same approach as you Simon, though I do think we need to be careful in how we frame it if we realistically want the result to be a change in approach without the need for a sharper sanction. Personally, while I sympathize with the concerns of the impacted parties here, including the sense that there has been some [[WP:IDHT]]/equivocating/rationalizing going on from :boo: in this discussion, I don't think a TBAN or CBAN block is appropriate at this point.  But this is primarily because I feel that in cases where the community has been dilatory in making a firm statement of disapproval of such conduct to a specific editor in specific circumstances, it is problematic to come at them all at once with the forestalled implications of the previous subpar behaviour that they were not previously adequately warned about in a discussion like this, involving people other than whom they were in dispute with. But the reason I favour a warning is not because I think :boo:'s conduct has never met the threshold of being significantly disruptive: it looks to me like it clearly has done so, at times. {{pb}}Regardless, there's a real danger here in not being plain spoken with :boo: about the shortfall between their conduct and community expectations.  Editors with their particular pattern of interaction and self-justification are already battling against an internal image which convinces them that they are simply "brusque, in a no-nonsense, cut-through-the-bull manner" and only fall afoul of community ire because they are "all too wiling to call a spade for a spade".  And they will typically seize upon the least bit of community indulgence of such perspectives as a matter of [[confirmation bias]], no matter how slight that support is, relative to community complaints.{{pb}} There's already been a small bit of this in this thread, including in your second-to-last post, and good-faith and honest though I know those observations to be, I do not believe they are what :boo: needs to be hearing right now, if we want to maximize the potential for a logged warning to be sufficient and avoid their being back here for a more substantial sanction in the future, after a lot more unnecessary incivil commentary borne by other editors rubbing shoulders with them in talk space.  The overhaul in :boo:'s approach needs to be substantial to avoid that outcome, and they need to internalize that this project is a workspace--a volunteer workspace, yes, but a workspace all the same--and that casual belittling of their colleagues' perspetives is just not acceptable, no matter what they believe the benefits to the project of their unfiltered commentary would be. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 19:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::And for the record, I do see indications above that :boo: is able and willing to make these adjustments.  The fact that they continue to be defensive about their past conduct does not necessarily mean that they are burying their head in the sand.  We all create for ourselves narratives about our past actions, so even when someone concedes that they should be doing something differently, it can be another matter entirely to agree to someone else's interpretation of past actions.  Afterall, they will reasonably feel that they are the only one who has direct access to memories about their past mental state. That's just human nature, and I would ask that the people here complaining about :boo:'s past behaviour keep that in mind.  But for those of us who have not had conflicts with :boo:, whom they may be more willing to hear an assessment from, I think we should be presenting a common front to the extent that we agree a change is in order, and not appear to give the impression that we are saying "change your approach, please.....unless you are really, really sure you are in the right and the other parties are being goobers." ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 20:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Yeah that's fair. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Expanding just a little on "yeah that's fair" I do think a ''logged'' warning is important because it says "next time this happens we'll know you have been warned". I don't think incivility is appropriate and it is often counter-productive because "this edit is wrong" is a lot less of a blow than "you are a moron," and usually leads to less entrenchment. However I've been doing a lot of thinking about how Wikipedia handles situations of conflict and am increasingly of the opinion we are being too hasty with blocks.
:::::::::::There are exceptions of course: bigotry, sock puppetry, vandalism and unrepentant disruption are things that are inimical to this project. But, for smaller issues, (especially editors who are good at what they do but are also rude, editors who are productive in most areas but have sore points where they struggle to collaborate and editors who make mistakes early on but are open to advice on correcting those mistakes) I think logged warnings, topic bans and page blocks should be used (basically in that ascending order, as relevant) should be attempted before pulling out the big guns. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 21:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes, I go back and forth on the question of how we handle blocks in community discussions.  Honestly, I'm not sure I've ever settled on whether we over- or under-applying them, because the situation can be so idiosyncratic, especially here at ANI: one user who should have been put into cool down much earlier can go years evading serious penalties for chronic personal attacks and disruption, and another can get nailed with a sanction for blowing their lid once in a stressful scenario.  Nor is it as simple as the more established editors being the ones to avoid action: that is a factor at times, but that's an oversimplification.  A lot of it just happens to do with who is around for the discussion and what has recently been going on in the community.  All of which is a long-winded way of saying, I agree with you: short of shackling ourselves to an inflexible set response, we should have a general escalating approach, and logged warnings are a reasonable starting place. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 23:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::To briefly interject: the reason I suggested a page block above is because I think hyper-narrow blocks like that can function as essentially a warning while also concretely solving the problematic behavior in the short term.
:::::::::::::If the issue right now is bloodofox's behavior on one specific page then blocking them from that page both fixes the immediate problem and signals to bloodofox that there is a problem with their behavior while not really impacting their editing much in the bigger picture. I'm worried that a pure warning is unlikely to solve the issue at that page, because that particular bridge has already been burned and everyone there now has strong opinions not just about the underlying dispute but about each other. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That's a reasonable position too.  For my part, I'm not sure I am satisfied that it is necessary in the sense of [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]].  I'm by no means saying I can't see why others might feel otherwise, but there are times where my gut says 'give them the opportunity to try".  It's true that tailored subject matter bans can redirect and preserve the useful contributions of a user who has shown a lack of restraint in particular circumstances.  But I'm not sure it very often succeeds in helping a user to evolve past previous issues, which is a much more desirable outcome, imo.  By which I mean not that they agree to obey community standards in some respect, but that they are won over to the reasoning behind them.{{pb}}I just think that a user like that is going to be more enthused for their work, and more at peace with their fellow volunteers than one that is being kept in line via restrictions and threat of further restrictions. For those reasons, if I see even just a small handful of concessions and a glimmer of effort to adjust, that's usually enough to move me to [[WP:ROPE]] territory, especially if we're talking about something like a first focused ANI thread. There's a lot of people here presenting very similar stories, a non-trivial proportion of whom have said some variation of "one of the most dispiriting experiences I have had on the project", so I'm not going to pretend I don't see why some are calling for concrete measures.  And more to the point, I hope Ox is hearing that. But for all of that my inclination is towards giving them a chance to make the necessary adjustments without forcing the issue. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 03:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Given the problems with the behaviour cover more than one page, I think a targeted block from the page means ROPE is still very much 'in play' for every other nexus of dispute, while stopping one of the (current and active) problems. It seems to be an ideal middle ground that solves an immediate problem and acts as a warning for the future (as well as starts the clock on the possibly-increasing length and breadth of blocks for any future problematic behaviour. At both the Bæddel and Braucherei pages, their approach and behaviour has been beyond the pale, but we have the opportunity to stop one of those right now with a firm warning in the shape of a page block. Generalissima is right when they say "but I was right" has never been a defence. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 04:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{reply|SchroCat}} I won't weigh in on what sanctions are appropriate but I will offer my perspective my editorial concerns, with examples from bæddel and bædling. My concerns go beyond that page, though. 
::::::::::::::::* There's persistent hostility, or simply ignorance, towards dispute resolution and substantive discussion. That prolongs bitter fights, which are only bitter on his part... and in any instance where the other party ''did'' lose their cool, he benefits from assumed higher credibility. Editors have exercised extraordinary patience and maintained a focus on content and sources, while he has never once proposed a change for discussion or offered meaningful rebuttal sources (in my view he believes he shouldn't need to)—this goes beyond just making an [[argument from authority]] into outright dangerous territory. 
::::::::::::::::* See this Talk post: {{purple|Is there a reason this article doesn't even mention the matter of toponyms? I added this material only for it to be mass reverted [...] Anyone with the slightest familiarity with this topic will encounter discussion of this important matter and yet it is not here}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1293718237 diff]). He's referring to his addition of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1286169405 a dictionary listing] when he knows the onus for inclusion is on him—i.e., if it's important, it'd be trivially easy to provide a source supporting that. We know he knows this because on his User talk we see his request for {{purple|some [[WP:RS]] to add outlining any activist history related to the words, that sounds very interesting}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodofox&diff=prev&oldid=1286586520 diff]) for his other argument. Consider his edit summary that states {{purple|the vast amount of discussion on this topic comes from linguists discussing this word in connection with the word "bad"}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=1294873905 diff]). In my view he's interpreting what is important to scholarship based on the existence of ''some'' scholarship, and seeks to frame articles around that without providing sources to that effect, on an obviously [[WP:CTOP|contentious topic]]. This makes the subtle claims of expertise even more dangerous because it forms part of the argument for inclusion.
::::::::::::::::No editor’s contributions are so strong that they’re worth scaring off eager collaborators. Why change that behaviour when it’s obviously effective in driving people like me away from an area that can benefit from more people? While his feedback is fundamentally hostile and unactionable, his voice is simply too big—not just because he summons folks predisposed to agreeing with him but, again, the hostile approach to consensus gathering and the subtle indications of expertise). Not to mention my goalpost moving concerns. He leverages subtly implied expertise, condescension and disparagement over meaningful collaboration and engagement precisely to exhaust others and drive them away. He got what he wanted in that respect – I'll stay away from all Norse/Germanic religion content. 
::::::::::::::::Finally I can't support that there's any contrition here given [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Bloodofox-20250612055100-ImaginesTigers-20250611235700|his ABF and unevidenced allegations]] that I am stalking and hounding him; these were straightforwardly contradicted but obviously at great cost to my time. I think discrediting is a persistent content dispute strategy for him, as we see at the Move request (e.g., citing [[WP:RGW]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295309280 22 times] and calling editors activist canvassers). It's reminiscent to the reason he got AE warned for guessing people's religions IMO (assuming bad faith). — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 10:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Frankly, their defensiveness and the tendency for people to try and wave away personal attacks makes me very cynical that there will be a change in behavior without ''something'' being done. bloodofox has been here almost as long as the site has, people have brought up this behavior before, they know exactly the courtesy expected of editors: defending personal attacks with "but I was right about that!" is not acceptable, it has never been acceptable, and is honestly a more telling indicator about their approach than the insults themselves. `<small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small>  20:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Your positions are not unreasonable, but here's the issue with getting a satisfactory result here, as I see it: a TBAN is going to be very difficult to secure, because while some of the behaviour is linked to specific topics, I think we can agree the issue is more with approach to conflict than anything.  The questioning of peoples expertise is more pronounced in areas where :boo: feels they have more expertise, but they have already committed to stopping that, and I think they should be given the opportunity to prove good on their word as to that.  That leaves a block or a full CBAN.  A standard block would not be appropriate here as there is not presently ongoing behaviour needing stopping, and a CBAN is an absolute last stop for worst case scenarios.{{pb}} I appreciate that a lack of serious sanction can feel unsatisfying for complainants here, with as many converging statements as there have been.  But a firm warning is not nothing.  One of our estimable colleagues recently closed a controversial thread here at ANI noting that despite no action, the party most complained about should consider that community eyes will be on them moving forward.  I recall thinking at the time that their observation is actually valid for many threads here.  There's a conventional (though not universally accepted) wisdom in the world of criminal law that a mistrial leaves the defendant in a slightly improved position for a subsequent trial. I think the opposite is typically true in this world: the community does not like seeing the same names pop up in connection with the same issues over and over. {{pb}} Given the weight of the concerns raised here on the first bite of the apple, :boo: would be well advised to perceive themselves on thin ice and should contemplate that if they come back here as a consequences of their own intractability, it probably will be broad TBAN or CBAN time.  Or they could still very well talk themselves into it in this thread, though I think that is unlikely. Regardless, for the moment, I am in favor of [[WP:ROPE]]. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 23:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::It doesn't strictly apply here, but I'll note that [[WP:ROPE]] includes, under "when not to use", {{green|If the user was justifiably blocked <u>but is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong</u>}}. Clearly, BOO hasn't been blocked, but equally I think the main part of the sentence is very close to the current situation. Equally, while this may be a first rodeo at ANI (though I haven't checked that), this is clearly a long-term pattern of behaviour where previous admonishments have had no effect. It may be different to have one that comes with a more official stamp, of course, but all of this makes me sceptical that a stern warning alone will be successful. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 06:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That's fair, but I'll note that if we put too much of weight on a failure to acknowledge being in the wrong, we'd have to start blocking a lot more than we already do.  But hey, I'm honestly not looking to go to the mat on this: I already had some blunt words for :boo: myself above, and I certainly don't feel justified in dismissing the concerns of those who have been in the trenches with them during the cited disputes. I can only say what my own instinct is with regard to which ameliorative approach feels like it has the best cost-benefit promise, given where we are now. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 08:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
* I've read through the Talk page of [[Bæddel and bædling]], the FACR, and the AfD discussion of Sumarr and Vetr. Bloodofox needs to stop commentting on other editors in discussions about content. Countless comments of theirs on those three pages are completely inappropriate. The AfD is a clear example of why [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]]. The article was kept, but that does not justify the long string of [[WP:PA|personal attacks]] they made, at times even going out of their way to add them retroactively [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1260882954]. 

{{hat|1=List of Bloodofox's personal attacks at [[WP:Articles for deletion/Sumarr and Vetr]]}}
*"learn the basics before even nominating something like this"
*"There's a lot to do on Wikipedia and attempting to delete well-sourced and well-written articles on topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about isn't one of them. Yeesh."
*"Again, you'd be wise to become familiar with even the basic of fundamentals with a topic before injecting yourself into a discussion regarding it."
*"which you'd know if you read the article you're trying to delete"
*"This drive to delete well-sourced material useful for readers over actually working to improve Wikipedia is absurd."
*"Spend less time on pages like this and more time actually reading about these subjects before wasting your time and the time of others, or maybe even spend that time attempting to improve the project in some way. What you're up to here is essentially Wikipedia:Disruptive editing"
{{hab}}
: Their claim, made ''today'' in ''this discussion'', that "In fact, the editor had not read the article and was not familiar with the material" is yet another personal attack. I do not understand why Bloodofox would go out of their way to ''repeat'' a personal attack here, while simultaneously implying that the many incidents raised here are too old to be relevant ("Spending all that time trawling through my many thousands of edits all the way back to 2016", "...the AfD 2024. I had completely forgotten about it, but I guess this is a fishing trip"). Clearly their behavior has not changed, despite them downplaying their previous incivility. I hope an uninvolved admin will consider applying '''escalating blocks for continued personal attacks''' per the [[WP:No personal attacks#Consequences of personal attacks|NPA policy]], starting with the one made today. 
: The behavior at other venues, especially [[Talk:Bæddel and bædling]] and the [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1|FACR]] looks like [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|BATTLEGROUND]] behavior. They seem to frequently comment on other editors (''ad hominem'') when discussing content issues and refuse to follow [[WP:BRD]], instead accusing other editors of edit-warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250418114500-Removal_of_numerous_WP:RS,_reinstitution_of_correct_dates,_etc.][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250418121200-Tim_riley-20250418115900][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250419031100-Sawyer777-20250418161100][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250419032500-Borsoka-20250419032400]. But this is frankly secondary to the repeated insults they continue to lob around, including in this very discussion, which must stop. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 18:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
*My only encounter with this user was at the move request for [[Braucherei]] which was frustrating to say the least. I actually considered bringing it to ANI at the time, but decided not to as the discussion seemed to be fizzling out and I'd hoped it was a one-off. I see now that this is a pattern. In my mind there are a few issues here. [[WP:CIVBRINE|Being right isn't enough]] has already been mentioned. There's also been some mention of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten discussion with Paine] on Braucherei. which was a complete failure to [[WP:AGF]]. They never even asked ''why'' Paine chose Braucherei out of the four options listed, and assumed that Paine {{tq|decided the activist, WP:CANVAS votes overruled everyone all else}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Braucherei&diff=prev&oldid=1293709903].{{pb
}}Another issue is [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]. To quote, in part: {{tq|Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.}} Mentioning issues once in the relavent thread is fine, but instead of then addressing it at ANI, <u>'':boo cited RGW 22 times''</u> on the Braucherei talk page. Multiple editors, myself included, asked them to stop. They continued to bring this up a few days ago in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2025_June&diff=prev&oldid=1294908538 move review] which again, <u>is not the appropriate venue</u>.  {{pb
}}While I support a logged warning, my own experience makes me a little concerned. They seemed receptive to my criticism and even apologized to me in March [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CambrianCrab&diff=prev&oldid=1281744262], only to immediately continue the same behavior [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Braucherei&diff=prev&oldid=1281852941]. I called them out on this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CambrianCrab&diff=next&oldid=1281744262], but honestly I'm still not sure what they were talking about in their response [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CambrianCrab&diff=next&oldid=1282185717]. Hopefully this time will be different. [[User:CambrianCrab|CambrianCrab]] ([[User_talk:CambrianCrab|talk]]) <small>''please [[WP:PING|ping me]] in replies!''</small> 00:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
*After reading through this whole thread, this is unreasonable [[Wikipedia:Incivility|incivility]] and arrogance from an expert. This is a net negative...  [[User:Rhinocrat|Rhinocrat]] ([[User talk:Rhinocrat|talk]]) 08:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
*I have not been pinged to this discussion, but learned about it on the Move review. Bloodofox's behavior has displayed ownership and civility issues on the talk page of Braucherei. I had posted a request for feedback on [[WP:IPNA]] on March 8 regarding my thoughts about moving the Pow-wow (folk magic) article to another title that was more accurate, and suggested Braucherei – the intention was to start a conversation with some of WP’s Indigenous editors and those interested in Indigenous topics, not to deliberately engage in canvassing. I also (foolishly in retrospect) wrote that I thought the term was “possibly culturally insensitive” and that the title may be “cultural appropriation”. I had no idea that those two terms are forbidden on Wikipedia! I did not think at the time that this would be inappropriate or canvassing. It was '''not''' a formal proposal to iVote on a move; it was another editor later turned my original question into a formal move proposal on March 17, over a week later. On March 20, Bloodofox then posted a canvassing message on the Fringe Notice Board (that was called out by two editors one of whom refactored his message due to its non-neutral wording.) I apologize for using the words “cultural appropriation” and “possibly culturally insensitive” in my original query to IPNA, it did not occur to me that they were impermissible. I really had no idea things would blow up the way they have, and I am sorry for any drama I inadvertently stirred up. However, I find the reactions by this editor to be highly inappropriate and uncivil, and am feeling rather bullied by their ongoing assumptions of bad faith on the part of anyone who disagrees with them.{{pb
}}On the article talk page Bloodofox has accused those disagreeing with him of being “activist” eleven (11)  times;  ‘canvasser” or canvas(ing) sixteen  (16) times; invoked [[WP:RGW]] twenty-two (22) times; and “censorship” ten (10) times. He has also stated that editors who disagree are “demanding”, “dishonest”, “desperate”, “inflammatory”, “sarcastic goal-post movers”, and accused others of making statements that were “outright false to the point of insulting” in other words, liars; who are “lobbying to RGW while contributing nothing to article spaces”. He also personally accused me of coordinating “a call to arms” project, to “bring a crew of censors.”{{Pb
}}This seems gravely out of proportion to me, especially when I and other editors brought sources to the table and offered several alternative names for the article such as Pennsylvania Dutch folk magic. Just because Bloodofox has been here a long time does not give him permission to violate civility guidelines. There needs to be a stop to this behavior so that editors can have productive conversations and debates that do not blow up like this. I had no idea before reading this report that similar behavior was occurring elsewhere on the project. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 16:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq2|I apologize for using the words “cultural appropriation” and “possibly culturally insensitive” in my original query to IPNA, it did not occur to me that they were impermissible.}}
*:They're not? They're not always good arguments but they're definitely not banned. I would at least consider this argument if presented. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 19:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
*I certainly believe that Bloodofox is a very knowledgeable contributor, but I can't say my experience working with him here has been entirely positive. While we initially got along quite well, in 2022 I got on Bloodofox's bad side during a rewrite of [[Germanic peoples]]. The dispute centered around the wording of the lead, leading to a brief edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_peoples&diff=next&oldid=1065506664], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_peoples&diff=next&oldid=1065552833]. Anyway, things came to a head in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germanic_peoples/Archive_21#That's_SOME_edit_war this discussion], wherein Bloodofox argued against multiple editors while refusing to provide any source for his preferred wording, all while repeatedly questioned my motives and "qualifications". Just a few examples: {{tq|ridiculous talk page blather from ideology-motivated editors}}, {{tq|you're on a ''mission'' here, and that you appear to be far less interested in improving the article than you are in making a point}}. A second discussion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germanic_peoples/Archive_21#Religious_continuity here], caused even more ad hominems attacking me as an ignorant contributor: {{tq|I see that you're new to this topic}},  {{tq|I get that you're new and excited about all this (and clearly have a pretty strong POV about rejecting the phrase "Germanic peoples" and all)}}. In this second discussion, Bloodofox also pinged in several editors who were likely to agree with him, leading to me scolding him for [[WP:CANVASSING]]. Things got fairly heated, and I may have said some things I now regret as well, but I think the point that Bloodofox basically couldn't (or at least didn't) produce any sources that supported his preferred wording and resorted to ad hominem attacks on my supposed lack of knowledge is fairly telling. It's the exact same behavior noted by others on this thread in other contexts. (Perhaps in his defense, once it was clear that consensus was against him, Bloodofox did let go and stop edit-warring).--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 16:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*:My experiences mirror to a large degree, those of Ermenrich. On both the Germanic peoples page and the Germanic religion page, he was rather condescending in his tone during group interactions/discussions. When he was asked to provide sources to substantiate his arguments, he more or less either disappeared or quietly allowed consensus to rule by absenteeism—which was a tad off-putting and/or disingenuous. To his credit, he is respected for his knowledge domain on particular subjects. It would be a shame to lose a person with his level of knowledge, but there is room for improvement with regard to civility and the implicit condescension he periodically displays. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Obenritter|Obenritter]] ([[User talk:Obenritter#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Obenritter|contribs]]) 17:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)</small>
*::[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]], {{replyto|Obenritter}} I've been trying to avoid the details of my content dispute but responding because you both mention his relationship with sourcing. He won't provide sources for most of his claims, and I'm confident he's been outright been wrong in my recent discussion with him. When he does provide a source, it is not something that would ever get through dispute resolution (which may explain why he is so resistant to it). When I do provide source to contest what he has said, his basic pattern is  to mention the names of scholars, loosely suggesting they agree with him, and quoting poetry. I want to give an example.

{{hat|1=Example}}
* He says [[Snorri Sturluson|Snorri]] didn't author an eddic fragment on Gna [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odin#c-Bloodofox-20250610224100-ImaginesTigers-20250610222400 in this comment]: 
** {{purple|First, to be clear, Snorri also didn't write the eddic fragment about Gná. He didn't write any eddic poetry on record. The Gná fragment is an otherwise unattested poem in the Prose Edda (specifically Glyfaginning). And anyone who covers it — or even reads it and the prose surrounding it, it is very readable — such as Simek or Lindow  or Orchard is perfectly aware that the poem fragment and its explanation outright says that Gná, a goddess, has a horse and that she rides it through the air. (As Faulkes renders it: "Fourteenth Gna: she is sent by Frigg into various worlds to carry out her business. She has a horse that gallops across sky and sea, called Hofvarpnir. It happened once as she was riding that some Vanir saw her travelling through the sky.")}}
* I provide a massive, collapsed box of scholarship contradicting him on Snorri/Gna, and on several other points ([[Talk:Odin#c-ImaginesTigers-20250611115100-Bloodofox-20250610224100|this comment]]).
* He replies: {{purple|And there's still a major error regarding this in your draft: The Gylfaginning text is prose with an eddic poetry fragment predating it. Is it your intention to imply Snorri authored the stanza and/or to ignore the eddic fragment, the sole eddic fragment containing a narrative focused on Gná?}} 
:::He doesn't respond to any of the scholarship contradicting him. This isn't actionable for 2 reasons: 1) there's no source, and 2) I don't know what he's referring to specifically in the 6000-word article. 
{{hab}}
:::In my view, this conduct simply doesn't work when you're facing a group of knowledgeable editors, but does if you're dealing primary with 1 editor (and some bystanders); i.e., it's the most advanced [[WP:Status quo stonewalling|SQ stonewalling]] I've ever seen. [[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]]: Regarding the part about pinging people likely to agree with him: yes. I received [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295476690 this "feedback"] from one of his regular collaborators earlier. I've disengaged from the page but I can they're [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295584883 being abrasive] with another user right now. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 18:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::::You know, {{U|ImaginesTigers}}, you really should ping me if you're going to link to diffs here of edits I've made. I'd like to make clear, as anyone who clicks on that first link can see, that "feedback" of which you speak was ''not'' addressed to you, so ''you'' didn't "recieve" it. If you think my reply to the other editor was "abrasive", I would say that seems hypersensitive, especially in light of the fact that said editor kindly apologized for their comment. Apparently ''you'' were offended, but ''they'' weren't. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 22:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::How on earth could directly saying that someone "doesn't have the editorial chops" to do something ''not'' be addressed to that person? &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 22:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Here is the full quote of your comment, for clarity:
:::::{{tq2|Agreed. The article could use some rewriting, but ImagineTigers, who I'm sure means well, doesn't have Bloodofox's expertise, and in my opinion, doesn't have the editorial chops to pull it off.}}
:::::And it doesn't make any difference that it was a reply to another editor's comment, it's obvious the recipient of your barb was ImagineTigers.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 23:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::>{{tq|I provide a massive, collapsed box of scholarship contradicting him on Snorri/Gna}}
::::I think you may be misinterpreting one or both of '''(a)''' bloodofox's claim, or '''(b)''' the sources.  The claim is not (on my reading) that Snorri did not write ''anything'' within the ''Prose Edda,'' or didn't compile it; it is that the particular poetic fragment in question was not original to Snorri—i.e., he includes it but did not author it.  This is, so far as I am aware, the standard view.
::::The sources you quote there say things like "Snorri tells us that Gná ...", or "Snorri cites a strange verse exchange [about Gná] ...", etc.—these do not imply the '''stanza''' in ''Glyfaginning'' was authored by Snorri, but only that Snorri refers to Gná in the work / Snorri compiled material about Gná.
::::It is also somewhat puzzling to me that you include, in the infobox'd list of citations, ''the exact quote from the exact source that'' '''''he''''' ''had just quoted to'' '''''you'''''—hence, he is clearly aware of it & does not think it supports your position... so why include it?!  I mean, 'snot important, really; I guess I just associate that sort of thing with people attempting to bury an opponent under imposing-looking walls of text while hoping they aren't examined too closely; but from reading through the discussion, it doesn't seem like that was actually your M.O.—I'd judge you as reasonably & cogently arguing a point with the real & genuine intention to discover the truth about it—and I admit to being a bit disappointed that bloodofox eventually ceased responding in detail (I'm an enthusiast, not an expert, so these discussions often end up valuable to me as an onlooker, y'see).
::::<small>''bias notice:  I've only had positive interactions with bloodofox, before all this stuff happened (or, well: interaction, singular, probably a year or more ago by now), and feel like many of the people airing grievances in this thread are way too sensitive—but! I swear that hasn't affected my interpretation of'' this one particular point ''at all!–''</small>
::::Cheers,
::::[[User:Himaldrmann|Himaldrmann]] ([[User talk:Himaldrmann|talk]]) 08:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''.  It's unfortunate that this has gone all the way to the CBAN level, but it's also unfortunate that bloodofox's defenders - including myself here at times - have let it get this far via enabling him on the theory that he knows a lot.  It's absolutely true that a lot of bloodofox's contributions have been good.  This is what makes it so frustrating that he so consistently misinterprets what other editors are up to in ''objectively'' incorrect ways.  See the "List of Cryptids" debate linked to by Rhododendrites, where he accuses Rhododendrites of tag-teaming as a duo with an editor ''who Rhododendrites proposed be topic-banned''.  Bananas.  Or see the bizarre accusations that ImaginesTigers was "stalking" him - when ImaginesTigers began his Odin draft rewrite, he didn't interact with bloodofox ''at all'' and doesn't seem to have interacted with him before.  No, it's just an editor being interested in the topic.  Even ''after'' this ANI thread was opened - and when bloodofox should have known to be on somewhat more polite behavior - he ''still'' was bizarrely hostile to ImaginesTigers.  In the Bæddel FAR and talk page, bloodofox grossly overreacted to the whole citation to the OED matter.  Now, he found a problem, and if he'd just raised it, it'd have been great.  But instead he acted like a ''tweak'' where a statement was somewhat overstating how much the citation backed it - that it merely mentioned another scholar's view while the text implied it endorsed it - was evidence that Generalissima was faking sources or an activist or incompetent or the like.  It took what could have been an easy win for collaboration that, to repeat, other editors agreed on, and made it a terrible feel bad.
* I want to qualify something here.  We shouldn't necessarily treat all saltiness on talk pages as a bad sign.  In some domains, good editors have to deal with genuine threats to the encyclopedia - POV-pushers, promotional editors, and people who are just straight liars.  Some amount of "calling a spade a spade" can be legitimate then, and some editors are themselves inflammatory in comments, so getting some of their own medicine back can be understandable.  So the mere fact that bloodofox has denounced editors should not be held up as a cause for sanction.  But - the problem is that bloodofox's denunciations are aimed at completely the wrong targets, ''obvious'' good faith editors who really have read the sources, and who are engaging in the boring, common process of scholarship that happens everywhere else.  Most editors would count themselves lucky to have such "opponents" who were so patient as to bother responding to his extremely over-the-top denunciations of them.  Even giving BOO the absolute most credit for being "right" here (and to be clear he's not in fact always 100% right), he can treat these other editors like regular humans who might be a touch misinformed but willing to respond to sources and arguments.  Why he is unable is baffling and frustrating, but this is where all the earlier attempts to send warning bells clearly failed, like the terrible close of the List of cryptids debate that basically said "you go king".
* I hope that bloodofox is not too annoyed at Wikipedia and is still willing to contribute, but if he is and wants to stay here, please, please, don't be a "brilliant jerk".  We don't need brilliant jerks.  Commit to acting civilly in all situations and easing up the heat on good-faith editors, and a CBAN may yet be avoided.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 03:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
* I've been on Wikipedia since 2007. I have had a number of encounters with Bloodofox over the years, albeit none recently. None of them have been positive. [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_January_9#Dingonek|I think their engagement in this discussion was typical]] - at every juncture the attitude was that anyone discussing with them ''must'' be someone as invested as they were in the discussion, but from the other side, and thus ''ipso facto'' a bad-faith actor. I'm not !voting in this discussion (yet) but I'm disappointed to see that not much appears to have changed in the past five+ years. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

=== Proposed community ban of Bloodofox ===
I hate to jump to this. I really do. I've been sitting here for a while trying to think of a lesser sanction that would prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, and I've got nothing. I warned Bloodofox [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive326#Bloodofox|at AE 18 months ago]] for {{tqq|speculat[ing] about other editors' religious views [and] attempt[ing] to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views}}, and the conduct described above, and the very lacking response thereto, only serve to convince me that Bloodofox' tendency to personalize disputes, including by focusing on editors' identities, has only gotten worse, not better—something I already suspected when he [[User_talk:Tamzin/Archive/12#Falun_Gong_and_Judaism:_False_Equivalence_at_Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|randomly showed up on my talkpage]] seven months after that AE warning to demand I take it back because it was {{tqq|outrageous and detrimental to the Wikipedia project}}.

Let's be blunt about this: [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] is queer. She is open about this on her userpage. She wrote an article about a topic often discussed through a queer lens, and cited an academic, Erik Wade, who is [https://x.com/erik_kaars also openly queer]. At [[Talk:Bæddel and bædling]] and [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1]], Bloodofox has repeatedly made the conclusory assertion that Wade is an "activist source" and that the article attracts "activist editors" (implicitly, Generalissima). He has given no explanation at all of why Generalissima would be seen as an activist editor. He thinks Wade, a professional medievalist whose paper appears in the ''Routledge Handbook of Trans Literature'', is an activist source because he cites [[Leslie Feinberg]]. This is, transparently, an objection that a queer editor has cited a queer scholar who cited a queer thinker to analyze queer medieval history. The implication is clear: ''There is no queer medieval history. Anyone who writes about it is actually promoting an agenda.'' This is obnoxious; it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia; it is consistent with the biased attitude I warned Bloodofox for in 2023; and, critically, it refutes his argument, repeated so many times, that as a subject-matter expert we must defer to him. A subject-matter expert ought to know the difference between LGBTQ activism and legitimate academic inquiry into queer topics throughout history.

In other words, if Bloodofox is an expert, he's not doing a very good job at it. What he <em>is</em> doing a good job of is creating a hostile editing environment. I would really encourage anyone, before !voting here, to read through not just the discussion above but also all the linked discussions. It's a lot to read but it packs a punch. Almost every uninvolved party, including some I do not think of as civility enforcement diehards, has faulted Bloodofox' chronic incivility, belittling of others, and naked appeals to his supposed expertise. What to do about an editor like this is a debate as old as Wikipedia. In recent years, though, the community has been increasingly clear: Whatever we gain by retaining an editor like this, we silently lose much more through the editors they drive away. I am open to supporting a sanction less than a siteban if someone can think of one that would work, but for now, that's where I stand.

(Note: I have no non-admin-capacity involvement with any of the discussions at issue here. However, Generalissima was my mentee—not that she needed much help to quickly surpass me as a far superior content creator—and the closer is welcome to give less weight to my !vote on that basis.) <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 03:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*I have repeatedly found myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Bloodofox's opinion but finding the way they are going about expressing that opinion disagreeable. I don't feel that they are a net negative but they're certainly making it harder and not easier to reach consensus in a civil manner. Its important to keep in mind that being right isn't enough... I don't think we're at the point of no return where a community ban is the best outcome though. I hold out hope that Bloodofox can self correct. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 03:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:FWIW, I'd easily support a page ban, and I agree with Tamzin's analysis here that part of the issue in this case is bloodofox refusing to consider the idea of queer scholarship legitimate. But I think the maximum reasonable sanction if that's the full story is a [[WP:GENSEX]] topic ban.
:I think we should only consider a (cross-topic) CBAN if:
:a. The problem is not with bloodofox's behavior in any given topic area but a general lack of civility across all topic areas.
:b. Bloodofox has been given enough [[WP:ROPE]] that they could reasonably anticipate a CBAN for further misbehavior.
:I think a) is likely to be true: in addition to the GENSEX-adjacent debate that spawned this ANI thread, we've also seen reports of issues over at [[Braucherei]] and at [[Odin]], though I haven't looked into either of those situations with enough detail to be confident saying that bloodofox's behavior was definitely bad. For b), though, I don't think a single warning at AE qualifies. If there's more evidence that bloodofox should have known they were cruising for a CBAN then I wouldn't be opposed, but right now it seems like we're jumping straight to the strongest possible sanction right from the start. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 03:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:: Eh, upon reading the thread Rhododendrites linked from ''2018'', and seeing how bloodofox's behavior hasn't changed as measured by multiple recent topic bans, I am now convinced that they have in fact been given sufficient [[WP:ROPE]] and would '''support''' a CBAN. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 03:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:that conversation at tamzin's talk page last july is frankly bizarre. in my view, it speaks to an inability to let things go. re: the "activist source" issue at Bæddel/bædling, i did not want to make that point because well, i know i'd be called an "activist editor" too. that is a frequent accusation which bloodofox makes against editors they disagree with (and sometimes it has merit to it!), such as with Falun Gong and Mami Wata. in fact they doubled down on the unfounded "activism" accusation against ForsythiaJo ''in this thread'': [[Special:Diff/1295169774|"responding to ideological drive-by editing"]]. now, i'm not familiar with the Mami Wata topic, but i do know what WP:ASPERSIONS are. i'm sure there really ''is'' ideologically-driven editing at Mami Wata, Falun Gong, Braucherei, and other articles they've mentioned. that is not on any planet an excuse to treat fellow editors the way they do. they've been formally warned for this at AE, and it didn't seem to even make a dent - there is scarce evidence of self-reflection or even admitting to poor treatment of others. this very discussion is chock-full of the exact same attitude and behavior that is driving people away from working on articles. i am currently not sure of my position on a CBAN vs. some other solution - i'd love if someone could think of something less than a CBAN but with more teeth than just a "strong warning" - but i think tamzin is absolutely right that {{tq|whatever we gain by retaining an editor like this, we silently lose much more through the editors they drive away.}} <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 05:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]]' comment seals the deal for me. i ran into bloodofox one time at cryptid topics ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not-deer]]) and it was more of the same condescension. a topic ban would not be effective here - the issues are across all topics they edit. i don't oppose a temporary block as a compromise, but after consideration i'm landing at tentative '''support for a CBAN''' - with the understanding that it doesn't have to be permanent. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 23:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I think this is too much for the moment, when a GENSEX topic ban hasn't even been proposed yet. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 06:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*Tamzin puts it extremely well. While there is a particular problem here when this behaviour crosses into GENSEX, this is not specifically a problem with Bloodofox's editing of GENSEX articles. Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, and given that major parts of this problem have surfaced (at least) at [[Braucherei]] and [[Odin]], there is no reasonable case that a GENSEX ban would prevent further issues. It sways me to hear that Bloodofox has ''already'' received a strong, unambiguous warning from an admin: I therefore have no faith that a further stern warning would have any effect, especially given the attitude shown here. I would therefore '''support a CBAN''', though that isn't to say I'd be unwilling to consider a lesser sanction, as Sawyer says. At the minimum, I think I'd be looking for a topic ban from anything related to early medieval Europe, broadly construed -- I think Tamzin's point is really important, that being unwilling to engage with queer scholarship is incompatible with being an expert, particularly in a field like this where queer scholarship is ''hugely'' important -- and, incidentally, which has a well-known problem with people trying to use it for virulent racist, sexist, queer-phobic, fascist and similar ideologies. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 07:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – I've read this entire thread, plus the other various discussions mentioned here, and in my view, there has been, and still is, a pattern of chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This comment from theleekycauldron pretty much sums it up: {{tq|Just in this thread, I'm seeing lots of other people come forward with their stories of how you derided them as incompetent, negligent, or bad-faith, and how it discouraged them from working with you. It wouldn't matter if you were 100% right on every single content dispute cited here – that's still not an acceptable way to treat people}}. If you can't be civil in your collaborations with fellow editors, and they just don't want to be around you, because they have felt maligned by your discourse, then you have become a net negative to the project.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 10:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*:<span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#%22Insufferable_Little_Prick%22 Is there a lack of clarity nowadays with civility in policy?]</span> I know in the past it was a bit gray and it appears to me that WP:CIVIL seems to have all but gone out the window as something that is enforced.. ? :bloodofox (1 November 2013)
*::A little [[Ironic (song)|ironic]], don't you think?[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 17:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I would support based on the thread as a whole and my comments/reading of some of the interactions that have been brought up. Additionally, {{tq|Let's be blunt about this: Generalissima is queer. She is open about this on her userpage.}} So is [[User:Paine_Ellsworth|Paine Ellsworth]]. I'd not seen the interactions between Paine and BOO through Tamzin's filter (in the proposal above) and AGF prevents me from doing so. But the question nags... Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 10:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''.  I agree with Tamzin's analysis up to a point, but I think this is far too much of a leap when we haven't even proposed a GENSEX ban yet.  This is a long-term editor with a pretty much clean block log (2 blocks, both overturned) and going straight to a CBAN seems to me a step too far. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*:I missed that. But it still seems a cban is too extreme. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I've been clear in the section above about my opinion on the matter however I think {{U|Horse Eye&#39;s Back}} has most effectively summarized my view above. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Far too severe. (At this point in time.) Basically, "per Simon223", as HEB puts it well. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 13:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as a leap of logic without adequate foundation. Whatever happened to a series of escalating blocks? Start with '''a three month (?) block''' and go from there. Hopefully by the end they'll learn that you can be an expert without being an arse. [[Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten]] is some of the most juvenile bullshit I've ever seen. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
**For clarification, I '''support a six month block''' of the sort {{noping|SchroCat}} suggests below. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I think Bloodofox is the only long-timer that I actively try to avoid, but seeing "maybe three months" or "try a topic ban" made it clear there's been insufficient documentation of a long-term problem. So I guess I will tell you about the saga where Bloodofox decided that I was part of some insidious creationist-cryptozoology conspiracy to thwart wikipolicy and promote stupid cryptid stuff <small>(almost as ironic as the time I got some off-wiki harassment for ''supporting'' gamergate after someone misread a revert)</small>.<br/>Basically the same kind of story as the examples above. I stumbled upon [[list of cryptids]] maybe a decade ago and made a bunch of edits to remove a lot of the, well, stupid cryptid cruft that had accumulated. Some years later, as part of a broader wikiwar against cryptozoology, Bloodofox decided that page had to go. It was still on my watchlist, and found myself trying to find a middleground between Bloodofox's everything-must-go-and-anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-the-enemy approach and a couple other users' efforts to include cruft based on silly blogs and sighting reports. So I wound up on the enemies list. It was a whole thing that I won't bore you with, and it mostly came to a head in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=875332364#Bloodofox this thread], in which I suggested both Bloodofox and the most active person adding cryptozoology content with insufficient sourcing be topic banned. There was more support for it than not before it was closed (by someone who, when challenged, ignored the thread and suggested we all just thank Bloodofox for sharing his valuable expertise). I threw up my hands with Wikipedia in general for a short while, unwatched the list, and figured I'd just steer clear of Bloodofox because life's too short or something.<br/>So we have... let's call that a near-miss sanction on the list of cryptids, and add that to a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive203#bloodofox|topic ban from the Clintons]], a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive326#Bloodofox|formal warning on speculating about personalizing disputes at Falun Gong]], and now -- how many different subjects in the evidence above? All demonstrating the same pattern of pervasive battleground approach to disputes. I do tend to err on the side of more leeway for long-term productive contributors, and I don't know to what extent my own awful experiences with Bloodofox are coloring my reading of the evidence above, but this feels like an old, established pattern that has reached "enough is enough". FWIW. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 15:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Enough is enough. I agree wholeheartedly with {{tq|whatever we gain by retaining an editor like this, we silently lose much more through the editors they drive away}}. I encourage editors who are arguing that this is jumping the gun to have a read of Rhododendrites' comment. And as someone professionally familiar with the topic that brought Generalissima to this noticeboard in the first place, I can say that, well, "activist scholar" isn't something Erik Wade hasn't heard before, but it's a ''strongly'' pov comment. It's the sort of thing you say when you go on a right-wing podcast to complain about woke professors brainwashing your kids. It's not the kind of thing you say in polite academic company. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support'''{{Small| (involved)}}. With an AE warning and two ([[Wikipedia:Unblockables|reverted]]) blocks, evidence by this many editors warrants a sanction IMO. Page ban is insufficient because the problematic areas span gender controversy ([[bæddel and bædling]]); wider cultural controversy (i.e., [[Talk:Braucherei#Requested move 17 March 2025|braucherei move]] and [[Talk:Braucherei#Article now entirely rewritten|post-move discussions]]); and Old Norse content (the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumarr and Vetr|Sumarr and Vetr AfD]]). A GENSEX topic ban seems insufficient; there's plenty of queer Old Norse scholarship but that doesn't warrant a GENSEX flag on the articles and so may not catch further issues. It's natural to wonder if bloodofox's 20+ years has played a role in the vanishingly small Old Norse editor base. Plenty of complex topic areas have thriving and highly collaborative editor bases (e.g., [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|Classical Greek and Rome]]'s recent rescue of [[Talk:Carus' Sasanian campaign|Carus' Sasanian campaign]]). Bloodofox [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295183727 pinged in] one "regular collaborator" to Talk:Odin who had never edited the article before, and their response is horrifyingly reminiscent of his own critiques, with not a single bit of actionable feedback on the content ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295476690 diff]). We know the result of inappropriately focusing on contributors over content and it's not editor retention. It's possible the damage to the topic area is worse than our current understanding. While a TBAN from medieval Europe might force reflection on how to gather consensus without leveraging their presumed expertise, bloodofox's long-term failures to make a strong arguments on Talk without bludgeoning and incivility really calls this expertise into question. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 16:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
* After starting the thread, I was very unsure what sort of sanctions would be appropriate or effective here. Tamzin and Rhododendrites make really good points here — the behavior is not restricted to any one topic or even related cluster of topics, it has been evidenced for years now, and there have been existing sanctions which indicate that this behavior is not tolerated. I think the biggest negative here is the fact that bloodofox's behavior seems to actively drive people away from topics that need more help. What sticks with me most is the editor that told ImaginesTigers "welcome to the Norse mythology Wikipedia editing experience". Out of context, that might seem like a petty jab, but with all this context it's the sign of a problem gone way, way too far. <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small>  17:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Disproportionate. The accuracy and balance of our encyclopaedic coverage are paramount; while civility is important, we do not promote neutrality by attempting to balance the competing preferences/needs of editors, but rather by attempting to report the positions of reliable sources. Academics disagree, and academics in different fields can take quite different approaches to an intersectional topic (opening up different avenues of approach is an important aspect of modern scholarship). It's our job as encyclopaedia writers to deal with this in a way that informs the reader, not to have either a symposium or a cage match over which approach is the one true one, and not even to assume that the latest scholarship is always right and throw out older scholarship. Bloodofox has been right in pointing to the body of existing scholarship and in establishing that scholars that other Wikipedians may not have heard of are not therefore necessarily unworthy (Liberman and Wade are both RS). He's been right in pointing out that something went wrong in the asessment of [[Bæddel and bædling]] for FA (and probably GA too; I'm not sure what the GA standard is on completeness and balance). Yes, he writes robustly, even rudely at times. But banning him for upholding standards on content would be shooting the messenger. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*:I find {{tq|not to have either a symposium or a cage match over which approach is the one true one}} an odd sentence in a defence of bloodofox. In the FAR he is adamant that the article should center his field of linguistics, and his evaluation of Wade has all the nuance of a steel chair. If he is representing an academic consensus, he has done a very poor job of demonstrating it. [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] <span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#FFF">[[User_talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|talk]]</span> 20:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*::But of course the article should "center" linguistics. It's about 2 glosses, and the argument is over how to balance competing arguments about the etymology. Bloodofox has been trying to get an actual etymology section with coverage of the mainstream etymological arguments into the article. In short: the article should cover both the content sourced to Germanic linguists and the content sourced to the queer theorist making a language-based argument, it's not either/or. This is an encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for arguing preferred analyses. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 02:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. I am the editor who took [[Ýdalir]] to GAR last year and was met with aspersions about my editing ability and knowledge. Since GAR can be touchy, I assumed they were acting out of frustration at the process and didn't concern myself further. I commented at the ''baedling'' FAR briefly, to point out that bloodofox was leaving walls of bludgeoning text accusing others of leaving bludgeoning walls of text. Unsurprisingly, given their attitude elsewhere at that page, they did not acknowledge the point or alter their approach. Around this point, I realized that they were the same editor from the GAR and realized that the behavior was clearly not limited to GAR. Otherwise, I don't edit Norse mythology or history, or pretty much anywhere else that bloodofox hangs out. So I would call myself mildly involved. {{parabr}}Until this thread, I was not aware of the scope and breadth of their behavior, and I am convinced that it does merit a CBAN. The evidence linked and quoted in this thread makes it clear that bloodofox's uncivil and downright nasty behavior is long-term, in that it extends over years, and wide-spread, in that it touches multiple topic areas and targets multiple people. A page-ban, IBAN, or TBAN would be insufficient to prevent further nastiness, and would only push it to another area. Several people above are concerned about escalating sanctions: what does one call stern warnings at AE, a previous TBAN, and two blocks? And yet the behavior continues. Yes, both blocks were overturned, once by a frankly out-of-process unblock that leaves me scratching my head - but nonetheless, you would think being blocked even once would be a wake-up call. Given their messages to Tamzin half a year after the AE warning, it is clear that warnings and finger-wagging do nothing but make them ''more'' aggrieved rather than more cautious. What can we do with an editor who refuses to acknowledge wrong-doing, who stews on grievances, who makes no change to their behavior and attitude? The only option is to show them the door. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 18:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*<del>'''Weak Oppose''', having had relatively little interaction with Bloodofox, although remembering that they were tendentious.</del>  I have for a long time thought that users with [[User:Robert McClenon/Long Block Logs|Long block logs]] should be considered as likely net negatives and should often be indeffed.  Bloodofox doesn't have a long block log.  Can one of the editors who is proposing to ban Bloodofox show me evidence that is shorter than the long list of diffs collapsed above that indicates that this editor is a net negative?  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Respectfully, opposing because you can't be bothered to read the extensive evidence is just wrong. If you don't have sufficient information to make a decision and don't wish to spend the time to obtain it, why comment at all? &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 03:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*::Not to mention that the block log, in this case, speaks eloquently as to why this has been allowed to go on for so long. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 11:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::Striking the Weak Oppose, planning to read the evidence within a few days.  On a content dispute, such as an AFD, MFD, or DRV, I know that I usually have six days in which to read the evidence, and the evidence isn't usually as long as in a conduct case.  If this thread is closed before I finish reading the evidence, then the community may have reached rough consensus before I reached a conclusion.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]])
*'''Temporary oppose'''. If a (trans)gender related case is [[WP:RFAR|opened by ArbCom soon]], this should be considered in that case. I am not going to try and add this to that case, because I'm trying to be an outsider there, but I think that the topic area '''as a whole''' needs looked at, which is best done by ArbCom in the arbitration setting with evidence and discussion/proposals by ''all''. For clarity, I'm making this comment in both sections here, and my view here shouldn't be considered if the ArbCom case does not get accepted. I just feel strongly that the problems in this topic area are significantly larger than any one user, and I trust ArbCom, if they accept the case which I think is likely and necessary, will come up with good solutions to problems - whether they be topic/full bans, or otherwise. Until that happens, I don't think it's helpful for individuals to be sanctioned outside of that process, assuming it happens at all (which again, I think is likely). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; [[User:berchanhimez|me]] &#124; [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 02:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''':  I've spent some time looking into the particular entry which gave rise to this conflict.  When Bloodofox first tagged the entry, it contained a false claim at the end of the opening paragraph.  Whether that arose from a simple mistake or confirmation bias is not particularly important.  The fact that the article was turned into a battleground to resist any changes {{small|(it took 48 hours and multiple reverts for the straightforward correction of "the OED supports Zupitza's theory")}} and that [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/B%C3%A6ddel%20and%20b%C3%A6dling 0 characters] of Bloodofox's contributions have been allowed to stand shows WP:OWN concerns and a resistance to expert intervention.  -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] ·   [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|  🍥]]</sup> 08:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*:{{ec}} This seems to be a vote about relitigating one specific point on one page, and completely ignores Bloodofox's attitude and approach over multiple pages, multiple topics and several years. I'll repeat what others have posted several times: being "right" about something does not give one the right to ignore civility policies and be utterly obnoxious al everyone who doesn't agree with them. This is an ongoing and long-term problem, not a one-off about whether someone was "right" on one page. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 08:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Insofar as this ANI starts by claiming that Bloodofox is guilty of WP:OWN, it is well to point out that this is very much the opposite of what happened on the page that gave rise to this filing.  The ownership behaviour is demonstrably coming from the other side. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] ·   [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|  🍥]]</sup> 08:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::If you want to take a blinkered view about "sides", then that's up to you, but there's a definite problem that is not being addressed, and that's an open sore that needs to be dealt with, not just ignored. The rest of the evidence, such as the Braucherei thread has been highly persuasive in my line of thinking. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 09:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support if for a fixed period''' An outright ban crosses close to overkill for me, but this is an ongoing, long-term problem that has resulted in a couple of blocks, a visit to AE and a TBAN. A topic ban, like the one proposed below, doesn't cover all the areas of disruption, so the alternatives are either a TBAN plus multiple bans across several pages, or a time-limited community ban or block for a period of six months or so, so I'm landing here for now, although I could be persuaded by alternatives if something more crafted to the circumstances could be worked up, but buying our heads in the sand and vaguely (and dubiously) claiming 'but he was right' is kicking the can down the road for problems yet to come. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 09:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

* '''Weakest possible oppose.''' Some of the newest evidence almost pushed be into support, but at the end of the day, I still have this concern: the community has broadly failed to apply the escalating sanctions model here, and :bloodofox:'s failings are therefor our failings. I'm not even saying I am confident :boo: is a net positive: it looks to me from the evidence presented here that on the whole, they may not have been for a while, so poisonous have their interactions apparently been for so many veteran editors (and who can guess how many more lower edit count editors were discouraged by similar comments who never knew bringing the matter here was an option). But again, that's on all of us, and going from near complete enabling to full community ban just feels problematic to me. But at this point, my oppose is based solely on not wanting to set a bad precedent for how we approach CBANs. That said, I am all for a block of non-trivial length. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 12:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*:I disagree that {{tq|bloodofox:'s failings are therefor our failings}}, when numerous editors have alerted them, throughout various talk page discussions, that their approach to editing the encyclopedia is not compatible with our established editorial and behavioral policies and guidelines. Their failure to heed the advice given them on numerous occasions, is their failure alone. In just one example, out of numerous, six years ago they were warned - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodofox&oldid=875378174#Rope you risk getting overheated in your defense of Wikipedia and could get sanctioned for how you react to people], but yet they continued, so I reject the idea that we somehow have failed our obligation to warn them of what could happen, and that because {{tq|the community has broadly failed to apply the escalating sanctions model here}}, we should take the blame for their actions.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 18:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per multiple comments above, this seems excessive, given that Bloodfox hasn't previously been sanctioned for such behaviour. It is clearly problematic, but immediate escalation to a CBAN seems unprecedented. A block for a couple of months at most would seem more in line with norms. And I'm inclined to agree with SnowRise above that if what appears to be a long-running issue hasn't been brought here before, it is indicative of a broader failings from the community and, in my opinion, quite possibly a consequence of the way WP:ANI discussions tend to spiral out of control far too often. As a way of encouraging 'civility', this place is far from optimum, and far too often, one gets the distinct impression that it is being used as an arena for continuing content disputes and/or settling old scores. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 13:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I arrived at this decision after following a link to this ANI because of the uncivil and demeaning behavior at [[Talk:Braucherei]] and the associated move reviews. However, I now realize that the belittling of other editors, casting of aspersions and unfounded accusations are patterns of ongoing behavior that has occurred across multiple areas of the encyclopedia for quite a few years.  Bloodofox is an experienced, knowledgeable and active editor, and because of that should be aware of the parameters for decency and civility. Yet it seems that they have leaned on their longevity to repeatedly ignore the boundaries of civil discourse. As an active editor, there is no way these community expectations could have slipped by his notice. Pretty much everyone loses their cool from time to time when they get flustered or frustrated or believe they are right, so heated discussions are understandable. But the evidence that has been brought forward by multiple editors over a long expanse of time, proves that this is far beyond heated or passionate discussions and has entered the realm of downright hostile behaviors that have harmed the community. I have read this entire ANI thread and it’s clear that Bloodofox has not learned from the AE warning, TBAN and two blocks as well as multiple requests to stop the offensive behaviors and uncivil treatment of others, and the GENSEX issues. I agree with what Tamzin has brought to the table, and think that the comments by Rhododendrites, theleekycauldron, PMC, Isaidnoway, asilvering, and others have stated as strong rationales to support a CBAN, which can be appealed in 6-months. At this time I find the 3rd option of a 6 month block unacceptable because it may not include full community involvement. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 16:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Hesitant support'''. While I'm not completely opposed to starting with a shorter block, this thread shows that multiple editors have tried to tell :boo that their behavior is inappropriate in the past to no avail. As I said earlier[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295309280], I brought these issues up with :boo Talk:Braucherai in March. I thought they were receptive to it as they apologized to me on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CambrianCrab&diff=prev&oldid=1281744262]. Unfortunately they immediately went back to casting aspersions in an inappropriate forum [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Braucherei&diff=prev&oldid=1281852941]. When I called them out on this, they just brought up RGW for the 23rd time (the other 22 are throughout the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Braucherei#Requested_move_17_March_2025 move request]). Nothing is going to change if :boo doesn't think they did anything wrong. So far, I haven't seen any indication that they realize their behavior is inappropriate. [[User:CambrianCrab|CambrianCrab]] ([[User_talk:CambrianCrab|talk]]) <small>''please [[WP:PING|ping me]] in replies!''</small> 22:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per the cogent arguments made by the other opposers. It is clear to me that Bloodofox is here to build an encyclopedia and their loss would be a net negative. Too many of the supporters appear to see him as an obstacle to writing areas of the encyclopedia the way they want (i.e. content disputes) and this should raise red flags. It is possible to work with people with an abrasive style, and I think Bloodofox will take this discussion to heart and improve their behaviour. Jumping straight to a community ban is not right here. The other options below feel like forum shopping to get some sort of result. This discussion itself, and the warning it gives, should be sufficient. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 06:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Yngvadottir's comments. The bit above about being "horrifyingly reminiscent" is pretty funny.;-) [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 14:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Based solely on his conduct at [[Talk:Braucherei]] and the related move review, Bloodofox did not heed the warning to avoid commenting on editors' perceived motivations. I'm supporting a ban at this time because I don't think any of the alternatives are workable/go far enough. ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 15:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as disproportionate for the alleged offense, which appears to me to be supported by a leap of assumptions. Boo called a scholar an activist for citing Feinberg; that is ''not'' the same as declaring queer medieval history to not exist. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 16:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''', because the Tban or block aren't happening and all the uninvolved admins are too scared to follow policy. This is not my first choice, but something must happen. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 17:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Toadspike|Toadspike]], that's an unnecessary slur about hundreds of admins. I encourage you to strike that comment. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Liz|Liz]]: If a user feels that admins are unwilling or unable to do our jobs, I don't think that the appropriate response, for an admin, is to request a retraction. I don't think Toadspike is entirely right here (social capital dynamics around blocking power users are about more than just fear), but it's important that non-admins feel able to freely criticize the admin team. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 03:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::While I understand Liz's feelings that TS's assessment is an oversimplification, I think Tamzin's observation is the more critical one: we must preserve an environment in which rank and file community members are free to voice their concerns about the use administrative prerogative--including when it comes to misgivings about inaction.  Coming down too hard on such comments, even when we feel they were made hastily or without sufficient nuance, runs the risk of creating a chilling effect.  And not for nothing, but blowing off steam via exaggeration of the inaction of the authorities is a necessary social lubricant for any collaborative human endeavour! ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 04:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm not saying that admins should be immune to criticism, [[User:Tamzin]]. I get criticized all of the time! But this comment was just such a blanket slur, it seemed thoughtless rather than malicious. While, like I said, no one is immune from criticism, I also don't think that insulting generalizations should get said about our editors and admins and not get called out as inappropriate. Admins are not a protected class, I agree, but they also shouldn't be open targets. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think the devil is in the detail here, Liz. I agree there is nothing wrong with responding to a comment like ToadSpike's in this instance by pointing out that unflattering blanket generalizations aren't the most productive feedback.  That's a reasonable perspective to have/opinion to express.  On the other hand, an admin saying that someone should strike their observation can easily be mistaken for more than a "suggestion".  Toadspike did not make an accusation of a policy violation by a particular user, or anything else along those lines that could pass for an [[WP:Aspersion]].  They merely opined about the lack of proactiveness on the part of the administrative corps to act in cases of power users (to borrow Tamzin's choice of terminology).  {{pb}} Now, as Tamzin also said, that statement about admins is an oversimplification at best.  But it's also not exactly an unheard-of opinion among the non-mopped, nor is it something that constitutes a brightline violation of any policy. So calling for a striking in those circumstances is probably not a great look when it comes from an admin, in relation to a criticism of broad patterns of administrator tendencies--whether the assessment is fair or not.  Just two cents from yours truly to one of my personal favourite admins. :) ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 08:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::And just to avoid my statement about oversimplification itself being an oversimplification, I'll be clear on what I think about what Toadspike said: Admins are generally hesitant to block experienced users for reasons of social capital. "Social capital" sometimes gets used in a disparaging way, but it's not inherently bad. Social capital is a measure of how much we trust one another, and if I as an admin see that a bunch of my peers all trust a specific user, that <em>should</em> give me pause before blocking the user. However, that isn't absolute, and when a block is necessary to prevent disruption, an admin should be willing to make that block. When looking at individual cases as an outside observer, I think it's pretty easy to see the difference between the good kind of social-capital-induced block hesitation and the bad kind. But it's hard to disentangle the two fully. Snow Rise, if you don't mind me using you as an example in good fun: If someone says something rude to you and you respond with a serious personal attack, and I choose not to block you, am I holding back because you are a well-respected editor who probably made a lapse in judgment in the heat of the moment, or am I holding back because you are a well-respected editor whose admirers would almost certainly take issue with the block? Both, of course; the two concepts are inextricably linked. All that is to say, fear is part of why no one's blocked Bloodofox here, but it isn't the full story, and the full story is as much a feature as a bug. We don't want Judge Dredd–style admins crossing off whomever they want with impunity; we also don't want cliques to prevent admins from enforcing policy. It's a tough balance to strike. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 08:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Well, I don't know if I have enough admirers to give any admin pause in a block by virtue of my community standing, but your point is a cogent one in principle. :) ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 09:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry, Liz. I know you mean well, but I stand by what I wrote. Fear is, to me, the only reasonable explanation for the fact that a blatant aspersion and personal attack (About theleekycauldron [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Bloodofox-20250612032100-Comments_from_Bloodofox above]: {{!xt|In fact, the editor had not read the article}}. An accusation not only unsupported, but falsified by the discussion in question) hasn't received so much as a warning in return. Tamzin and SnowRise have expressed this with a little more nuance. I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that a policy all admins are responsible for enforcing has not been enforced. I admit that it is less appropriate to speculate on ''why'' it hasn't been enforced, but I picked the most charitable explanation I could find in an effort to assume good faith. The fact that my "slur" was questioned while bloodofox's comment containing aspersions, personal attacks ("the most ill-intentioned way possible", "this editor is apparently out for my (ox)blood"), and blatant falsehoods ("snowball keep") still hasn't been simply proves my point. (If I come across as frustrated or disappointed, it is because I am.)  [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 10:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Editors are our most valuable resource, and we are all volunteers. I've been following this thread. It reminds me of a subject-matter expert in one of my areas of interest a few years ago, who was so abrasive that they were impossible to collaborate with, and who got CBANned. Before that happened, I learned to avoid conflict by refraining from editing any article where they were active. That may not have been best for the encyclopedia, but it was was definitely best for my peace of mind. (I dislike [[WP:GRAVEDANCING]], but could verify the username by email to anyone with a good reason to ask for it.) [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 19:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' After reading of all the evidence, I'm inclined to support the CBAN, because of the sheer [[WP:Civility|civility problems]] they have, and the refusal of collaborating with others that disagree with their view points. And the amount of [[WP:ASPERSIONS|aspersions they have cast]] on other editors. Also per Alexandermcnabb. [[User:Codename AD|<b style="color:#FF7E00;"> ''Codename AD'' </b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Codename AD| <b style="color:#B0BF1A">''talk''</b>]]</sup> 12:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Weakest possible oppose''' - [[USER:Bloodofox|Bloodofox]] has been rude and belittling for absolute years on here. My own experience of them (in the "Cryptid" discussions circa 2018-19) was that anyone who disagreed with them was clearly, in their eyes, someone who believed that Cryptids were real and thus anything they had to say was instantly irrelevant and to be ignored. Regardless of the sourcing, regardless of how clear they were that they did not believe in Cryptids - merely saw sufficient sourcing to support an article about the fictional animal concerned ''as a fictional animal'' - in their eyes these people were mouth-frothing true believers in pseudoscience and were to be treated to as such. 
:I don't see that anything here has changed in that time, but it's also clear that this is the result of a failure to act on the Wikipedia community, indeed rewarding this behaviour as part of a crackdown on perceived pseudoscience. At least in the past this behaviour has even been rewarded and cheered on (I think [[User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.|"Yes we are biased"]] is the biggest example of this kind of swaggering, unnecessary, counter-productive triumphalism, not uncoincidentally...). However, the community has some hot-button topics where this kind of disrespectful behaviour will get you directly in to trouble, and GENSEX is clearly one of them. And that's what happened here.
:So why oppose? Mostly because I think that people who contribute in other areas - or even (let's be honest) purposefully avoid hot-button topics because of the regularity with which it has bad outcomes for people within those areas - also deserve to be treated with respect. It should not only be the case that people can behave badly for years just so long as they stay clear of Wikipedia's "third rail", and that only editors within that area are defended against being treated in this fashion. The message I'm getting here is that Bloodofox could have carried on with their behaviour for another 20 years without anyone saying against them, ''just so long as it wasn't in the GENSEX area''.
:For me to support we'd have to clear that Bloodofox's behaviour was unacceptable regardless of who it was directed towards or what area it occurred in. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:FOARP|FOARP]], I can't say I understand what you mean by {{tq|For me to support we'd have to clear that Bloodofox's behaviour was unacceptable regardless of who it was directed towards or what area it occurred in.}} The GENSEX tban is already off the table precisely ''because'' the issues span many (all?) topic areas. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 19:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::That’s not the case being made at the head of this section. The case being made there is that this is about behaviour in the GENSEX area: that Bloodofox blundered carelessly into that minefield, behaving there as they did in other areas, and that’s what blew him up. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen an editor who I personally found behaved in an unacceptable fashion (I think Narky Blert above may also be thinking of the same editor), but who was generally celebrated, only finally come apart that way.
:::If Bloodofox is being CBAN’d, it needs to be stated clearly that this is because of behaviour that would be found unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 20:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I've just re-read {{u|Tamzin}}'s first paragraph, and can't find any way of reading it that doesn't unequivocally say {{tq|this is because of behaviour that would be found unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia}}. See in particular {{tq|I've been sitting here for a while trying to think of a lesser sanction that would prevent disruption <u>to the encyclopedia</u>, and I've got nothing. I warned Bloodofox at AE 18 months ago for speculat[ing] about other editors' religious views [and] attempt[ing] to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views, and <u>the conduct described above, and the very lacking response thereto, only serve to convince me that Bloodofox' tendency to personalize disputes, including by focusing on editors' identities, has only gotten worse</u>, not better}} (all emphasis mine). Do you think something needs to be added to that? ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 21:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{u|FOARP}}, there's no way to say this in a way that can't be read as sarcastic, but it's in no way my intent: have you read the other support votes, and the discussion preceding this proposal? Many editors have pointed out problems that stretch far beyond the gensex topic area as their reasons for supporting a cban. In my own support !vote, I specifically cited Rhododendrites', for example. The talk page message Tamzin refers to in the first paragraph of the cban proposal is also not gensex-related, if you want another example. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::The point is not what other editors have said, it's the motion we're supporting/opposing. I want it clearly stated, not just implied, that this is not just another example of an editor carelessly treading in to a CTOP minefield. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Putting all other immediate considerations to the side, the observations {{u|FOARP}} makes here about a certain personality type who, by virtue of thinking of themselves as aligned with rationalism, believes they are entitled to flout the normal rules of decorum and process (and often being enabled in this sense of exceptionalism by boosterism from a like-minded clique and inaction from the broader community) are right on the nose, and highlight issues the community is well overdue to address in a systematic manner: FTN, for example is presently known for two things, in roughly equal measure:

:::1) the concerted, meticulous and principled work of many of our most dedicated subject matter experts in confronting and minimizing all manner of dubious, niche, and woo-oriented content, resisting the efforts of those pushing heterodox POVs out of sheer credulousness or self-interested promotion. A deeply a critical function for this project.{{pb}}And, unfortunately, also 2) some of its more zealous participants frequently blowing their lid out of burn-out and/or an overdeveloped sense that they are the ultimate guardians of the rational in the culture wars, losing all sight of our civility guidelines, AGF, and best practices for discussion and dispute resolution.
::At an absolute minimum, FTN is bar-none the the forum with the single largest footprint for [[WP:BITE]] anywhere on the project, and there's not even really a close second.  In fact, the space has become so well known as a magnet for high-conflict personalities on both sides of the fringe divide that I've seen a number of people in past ANI discussions seriously propose deprecating the entire forum.{{pb}}All of which is to say, this self-appointed sense of entitlement to show short shrift to normal community behavioural expectations is long overdue for an organized response from the community; be it a series of pointed ArbCom cases, heavier enforcement at AE and ANI, promulgation of new policy language or all of the above.  Because the editors who have adopted this philosophy of exceptionalism to the rules in the name of "fighting the good fight" against religion, and woo, and so forth do coordinate informally in rather a big pack, consistently arriving to reinforce one-another in editorial discussions at noticeboards and talk spaces.{{pb}}I've never had a direct interaction with :bloodofox: before this discussion, but I did recognize their name when they showed up here from several previous disputes that ended up at ANI which concerned religious movements and "cults" as a controversial label--an area where it is common to see the same type of efforts to gatekeep and deligitimize other users as has been a central complaint in this thread. {{pb}} And believe me, I am deeply convinced those attitudes need to be systematically disconstructed and removed from our work spaces (starting most asusredly with FTN). But FOARP is right: we have enabled these bullying tactics from self-styled anti-fringe warriors for years through our inaction.  And much as I want to see a seachange in that respect, it just feels like a bad place to start by going straight from zero (no action, as CIV and AGF are regularly treated like toilet paper in these areas) to a hundred (a CBAN without trying any intermediary solutions first). {{pb}} We should instead be using a much more gradual (but firm and widely applied) movement towards making sure our basic behavioural standards are applied equally to all editors: new and old, skeptic and non-skeptic.  This "well, they have to deal with so many SPAs and POV pushers, it's understandable if they lose any sense of tact" rationalization has got to be discarded.  In these areas we need editors with ''higher'' than normal patience and proclivity towards applying all editorial and behavioural rules equanimously, even in the face of [[WP:NOTHERE]].  The idea that maintaining the bulwark against [[WP:FRINGE]] requires a losening of the normal rules or else we stand no chance of containing the worst of the credulous editors, self-promoters, and true believers is a complete canard.  Indeed, it's an attitude that has clearly for years enabled huge time sinks for the community, and then we act surprised when the indulgence of these "fight fire with fire" attitudes predictably set entire content areas ablaze. {{pb}}But until we make the appropriate changes in a coordinated way as a community, we shouldn't be dumping all of our ire on an editor all at once because the dam finally broke.  We turned a blind eye to those attitudes as a community. We can't absolve ourselves of complicency by putting it all on individual editors and shoving them out the door. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 22:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::<small>(involved)</small> Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it seems like you’re saying a small slice of the community has neglected its responsibility to editors previously, and now must abdicate responsibility to the wider editor base as a result. I certainly didn’t sign up for anyone to be a bully on anti-fringe crusades (and don’t know bloodofox’s history there).
:::You use a dam as a metaphor—an unstoppable current we must simply survive. That’s an unreasonable expectation of the community. Very few editors are a dam (especially if they largely produce fights instead of content). They are a broken pipe. We fix pipes that leak and hopefully, long term, design pipes that don’t. Far more people will quietly show themselves the door if we wrongly aim empathy at those causing disruption over the disrupted. (And after a TBAN and an AE warning!) — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 00:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Tigers, could I trouble you to link me to the TBAN in question? I keep seeing it referenced here, but if it is still in effect, it isn't logged at [[WP:EDR]], nor has anyone (that I have seen) mentioned what the proscribed area was, who applied it (community, ArbCom or admin working at AE), or what the context was.  I have a response of mixed agreement and disagreement for your last post in mind (actually, I typed it out yesterday), but one element of my perspective is open to adjustment based on the specific of the TBAN situation. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 04:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::it was mentioned in the very first post - it was a year-long topic ban from the clintons back in 2016. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 04:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ah yes, thanks, I do recall that now.  I don't suppose you'd happen to have a link or even just the basic deets on the discussion by which it was applied? ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 05:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive203#bloodofox]] <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 06:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::SnowRise, I fully agree. I really wish this had ended with a 24hr block and a warning that the next one will be longer. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 05:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Agree- SnowRise has their finger on the pulse here. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]]. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] ([[User talk:Haukurth|talk]]) 00:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Carcharoth and AndyTheGrump. Jumping straight to a cban seems excessive. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 00:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per {{u|FOARP}}'s "third rail" and i suggest editors should critically read the proposer's second paragraph. What {{u|Tamzin}} is clearly and transparently saying by implication is ''certain editors, content, and sources in this topic area are beyond criticism, those who dare should be banned, and that identity is more important than building an encyclopedia.'' See how easy that is? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and that "anyone" certainly inlcudes a large number of outright trolls, the incompetent, POV-pushers, and yes activists. There is an unsupported assumption, i would say ''myth'', that droves of potentially productive editors are being driven off the project due to civility issues (mostly from FTN or as is stated above those of a "certain personality type"). My observation is that any criticism, far from driving editors away, is often elevated to "civility" concerns and weaponized either here or at AE. What is not an assumption and is supported is that editors leave because they become demotivated when they are unable to continue pushing bad content into articles {{cite journal|last=Steinsson|first=Sverrir|year=2024|title=Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet|journal=[[American Political Science Review]]|volume=118|issue=1|pages=235–251 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|doi=10.1017/S0003055423000138 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/FC3F7B9CBF951DD30C2648E7DEFB65EE/S0003055423000138a.pdf/div-class-title-rule-ambiguity-institutional-clashes-and-population-loss-how-wikipedia-became-the-last-good-place-on-the-internet-div.pdf]]}} [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 15:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
** Set aside the "broader" case for a moment and focus on ''this specific editor''.  There are people ''in this thread'' saying they've been driven off from contributing in areas boo frequents, editors who aren't "incompetent", "trolls", or "POV-pushers".  Even if for the sake of argument you're right about other areas, it seems clear that it's not the case here.  It's been openly known to be something of a [[missing stair]] problem in the area, and I say this as someone who ''agrees'' with him on parts and thinks it would be a shame to lose his expertise.  Just because bloodofox has valuable feedback doesn't change the fact he objectively has driven off ''good'' editors trying to ''improve'' articles in ways he doesn't approve of (e.g. the Odin case or cryptids case above).  There really isn't any question this has happened; just read the links.  So I don't think hypothesizing the problem is overstated in general is relevant here.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 22:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - the OP certainly has merit. If I understand correctly, previous similar instances happened in 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2023. Some see this as evidence of a pattern of conduct that isn't improving. I don't see it that way: I think if an editor crosses the line every 2 or 3 years, that's OK. That's an acceptable frequency of policy violations. Especially when it comes to civility (everyone loses their cool sometimes, every few years is not too often IMO, and incivility is very subjective), and especially for editors who edit in controversial topic areas (where it can be very, very hard not to lose one's cool, much harder than when editing alone or editing non-controversial topics). So, for me, I don't think this level of incivility every 2-3 years is worthy of a CBAN. That doesn't mean we should do nothing (and I will make a proposal below), but for me it just doesn't reach the level of the ultimate sanction. If this were happening every year instead of every few years, I'd probably have supported it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Levivich|Levivich]] I agree in theory that that wouldn't be an unacceptable rate of losing ones' cool, but I think you missed a bit of the timeline. The situation on Braucherei originally happened in March 2025 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Braucherei#Requested_move_17_March_2025 discussion in question] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295309280 summary]), and the interaction with Paine[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten] happened earlier this month. The discussion here opened with mention of some instances in 2024 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Generalissima-20250611221700-User:bloodofox] as well. By my count, the line crossing is happening multiple times a year, not every few years. [[User:CambrianCrab|CambrianCrab]] ([[User_talk:CambrianCrab|talk]]) <small>''please [[WP:PING|ping me]] in replies!''</small> 23:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*::Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to noticeboard reports not instances of incivility. If there were only one line crossing in the past year, I'd say that wouldn't even be worth an ANI thread. (Multiple recent line crossings, as here, are worth it.) [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 03:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Extremely belated comment'''. {{U|Tamzin}}'s reasoning in making this proposal (which I have already opposed) includes arguing that Bloodofox's edits show he believes {{tq|''There is no queer medieval history. Anyone who writes about it is actually promoting an agenda.''}} (Italics in the original.) Bloodofox stopped editing after posting above on 12 June. Looking at the history of his talk page before he blanked it, I found that back on 20 April, in response to {{U|Urve}} writing about [[:Bæddel and bædling]], {{tq|I suspect you'd find that my some of my opinions on the article run counter to yours (there's almost certainly an activist history of the term which was written in the 70s and, as part of an influential cultural moment, that history should probably be presented}}, Bloodofox's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodofox&diff=prev&oldid=1286586520 response] ended with {{tq|It'd be great to have some [[WP:RS]] to add outlining any activist history related to the words, that sounds very interesting.}} These are not the words of someone negating queer history, and they specifically welcome source-supported content on activism related to the words. Which is what Urve had suggested Bloodofox was likely unaware of. In my opinion this seriously undercuts Tamzin's speculation as to Bloodofox's motivation, which has done Bloodofox an injustice. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 03:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*:I think the repeated use of "activist" in the comments above makes this defense less than useless. It very clearly just reconfirms Tamzin's statement above: bloodofox (and Urve, for that matter) really does genuinely appear to believe the only possible queer reading of history is an activist one, that the historic value of Wade's academic queer history perspective is about the 1970s when it was developed instead of, y'know, approximately 600-1066. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 05:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*::I've been watching this discussion with some interest. But just clear something up, {{u|LokiTheLiar}}, I don't "believe the only possible queer reading of history is an activist one". When I say "activist history", I mean activist history. I think it's likely that gay activists published on the terms in gay magazines in the 70s. I don't think the terms appear in either [[Jack Nichols (activist)|Jack Nichols]]'s ''GAY'' or the ''Advocate'', but that's the sort of material culture and activist publication I'm referring to (I've been waiting to review others on microfilm and in my collection). Nichols and Lige Clarke published a lot of work that was purposefully activist on Whitman and other historical figures - I think "activist" is just a descriptor of their publishing intentions, not a naughty word that makes their work less important (or for that matter less reliable). To the extent it matters, I don't think Wade is an activist source. [[User:Urve|Urve]] ([[User talk:Urve|talk]]) 05:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::That is a useful clarification, however it still means that bloodofox only thinks the history of activists is a valid topic here, and that no evidence that he thinks the queer history of Old English is a valid topic of inquiry has been offered. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 06:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:*'''Oppose''' per Carcharoth.
:[[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 00:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose.''' Considerations:  '''(a)''' the timespan involved; '''(b)''' the comparative mildness of the "incivility" alleged (I am honestly surprised that some—most?—of these "incidents" were even considered worth digging up; "I'd recommend you stop advancing this nonsense & become acquainted with the topic first", or something like that—especially when in fact it indeed turned out to ''be'' nonsense—is beyond the pale? surely, any ''compos mentis'' adult can handle this level of "antagonism"!), and '''(c)''' the fact that bloodofox is acknowledged to have been ''correct'' in almost every case (yes, being right is not a shield against rebuke for being uncivil; sure; but in the end, one knowledgeable editor who's sometimes sharp on the Talk-pages serves the real purpose  here—i.e., building an ''encyclopedia''—better than double the number of polite-but-confused ones... and I notice bloodofox's interlocutors have not always been so polite themselves; although, in some cases, one could argue that they were merely responding in kind, it escalates tension all the same).
:[[User:Himaldrmann|Himaldrmann]] ([[User talk:Himaldrmann|talk]]) 23:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as unearned. I do not like [[Wikipedia:Unblockables|longstanding editors getting away with behavior that would get new editors blocked]], and make no mistake that description applies to Bloodfox. But it also applies to a lot of users, and there are far worse examples than this that have not been sanctioned or been given slap-on-the-wrist blocks. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 07:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:isn't that purely an [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] argument? "We shouldn't sanction a person, even though they've done things that are sanctionable and will continue to do them unless we sanction them, because other people have done worse things without getting sanctioned" seems to imply that we have to go find enough of the "worse offenders" and sanction them before we take the step here in front of us that we'd agree improves the project. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 21:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:It also seems to imply that if an editor has been around long enough to earn some sort of seniority or "tenured" badge that they don't have to abide by the same code of conduct that the "untenured" editors have to adhere to. This is a double standard, no? [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 22:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*::I think you've misread something. 
*::[[User:Himaldrmann|Himaldrmann]] ([[User talk:Himaldrmann|talk]]) 23:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

=== Proposal: Topic ban bloodofox from GENSEX ===
{{atop|status=Not enacted|1=This one, at least, has [[WP:SNOW]] in the forecast with the opposes lining up below. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)}}
* '''Support as proposer''' This has come up multiple times above as a possible sanction less than a CBAN. Right now this is still the maximum sanction I feel is reasonable, and it definitely feels justified considered the central dispute in question revolves around bloodofox's blanket dismissal of queer scholarship. It wouldn't solve every issue that people have brought up but we shouldn't let searching for the perfect sanction stop us from imposing sanctions that are clearly justified. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 23:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've mentioned preferring a logged warning before but that was prior to seeing the evidence from Tamzin. While I still believe a cban is inappropriate,  I do think a topic ban from GENSEX, unfortunately,  seems appropriate. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 23:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''.  I'm skeptical of this remedy.  Bloodofox has been unpleasant on topics that have nothing at all to do with GENSEX (in this thread alone, Odin, Ydalir, cryptids, closing a move request in a way he disagreed with, etc.) so this isn't the core of the problem - civility and AGF and collaboration are.  Whatever remedy is chosen should focus on that, not on carving out specific topics as no-go, which sends the wrong message (being terrible about GENSEX topics is bad, but being terrible elsewhere is okay?).  If there's a desire to suggest an alternative remedy that stops short of a community ban, I would suggest some sort of "ban from article space, ban from project space, can present corrections / sources / suggestions on the talk page civilly" with an understanding that civil collaboration on the merits is welcome with an understanding that other editors might disagree with the suggestions and not implement or agree with them (but if they're really so good perhaps they'll be convincing).  The barest hint of incivility toward good-faith editors leads to escalating blocks and/or the CBAN again.  Well, that'd be my suggestion at least.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 00:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Pretty much agreed, a GENSEX topic ban doesn't cover it. If the CBAN proposal ends in no consensus because some editors feel it's overkill, an administrator should block bloodofox for somewhere around three months to stop a sitewide long-term pattern of disruption and personal attacks that a warning would not address. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 02:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per SnowFire, basically. Just strong enough to oppose outright. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' per SnowFire. i've said above i'm sympathetic to solutions lesser than a CBAN, but this does not address the actual issue. the incivility is hardly limited to the GENSEX topic area, and therefore i don't see this as preventative. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 02:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Temporary oppose''', per my comments above. I don't feel strongly on this either way, but I think it should wait for the ArbCom intervention that I truly hope is coming in the near future. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; [[User:berchanhimez|me]] &#124; [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 02:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per SnowFire. This is not a GENSEX issue: this is an issue of how bloodofox engages with ''all'' editors who disagree with him, particularly in the area where he considers himself an expert. If there are wider issues with how GENSEX topics are handled generally (and I think that would be out of scope here anyway), they are clearly coincidental to the problem here, since the behaviour in question has happened over several pages with nothing to do with the topic. Some sort of non-total ban ''might'' work, but it would need to be one that actually covered all the bases. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 08:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' for the same reasons I opposed a CBAN above. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] ·   [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|  🍥]]</sup> 08:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because this has very little to do with GENSEX. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. This feels poorly targeted to address the core issues.  As far as I have seen here, we have one suggested incident where a certain reading of a couple of statements may have shown a reactionary attitude to a queer source.  But it's highly speculative, and the behaviour/comments in question could easily just be :boo:'s habit--well-attested here--of hyperbolic overreaction to contrary perspectives and accompanying efforts to deploy vague and unsubstantiated labels as a cheap rhetorical tactic for undermining said perspectives.  In any event, the core issues here are [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], [[WP:ASPERSION]],  [[WP:CIVILITY]], [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:OWN]], [[WP:BLUDGEON]], and [[WP:STONEWALL]].  A GENSEX ban does nothing to address these concerns for the vast, vast majority of the problems that this user is having with treating their colleagues with respect. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 12:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per SnowFire, Leekycauldron. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 16:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - because the behavioral issues are not solely in this area but are spread across multiple topics throughout the encyclopedia (as described in my comment in the section above.) [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 16:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

===Proposal: Six Month Block, Non-Appealable===
Though I think it's going to be a close-run thing, I believe it is likely that a complete CBAN will be found to be a bridge too far for too many community members to allow a sufficient consensus for that sanction.  On the other end of the spectrum, the GENSEX topic ban is far too narrow and would fail to restrict the behaviours the community is objecting to so strongly here in the large majority of instances.  And even if the TBAN were aimed at subjects which are much more at the center of :bloodofox:'s editorial activity/disputes, I believe it would still be viewed as sending an insufficient message of community concern, so voluminous and serious are the infractions of policy, and so wide-spread have the impacts clearly been on so many contributors and community members, from just the evidence provided here.{{pb}}  So I suggest we try to keep our response within the framework of the escalation model of sanctions, but also make no bones about the fact that the issues here cannot be resolved with a warning or a slap on the wrist.  Therefore I propose a '''six month community ban, non-appealable for the duration'''.  Alternatively, we could leave open a community appeal after, say, four months, but permit no administrative appeal.  ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 13:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

*'''Support as nom.''' Let's let the community move on and give :boo: a well-justified break, followed by the shortest amount of [[WP:ROPE]] on return. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 13:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I remain unconvinced that this will be enough, honestly, but agree with Snow Rise that this seems to be where the consensus is -- and it would be nice to have the opportunity to eat my words if it does indeed lead to a change in behaviour. I think any block/ban has to be general or almost entirely general, given the widespread nature of the issue and how it has moved between different topic areas, namespaces, and so on. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 13:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' and I would have opposed this even if I agreed with it, because this is getting ridiculous (and completely unfair to bloodofox).  You can't just keep flinging random sanctions at the wall when it looks like the previous one may fail, in the hope that one of them will stick. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*:To be fair, we have a situation where most people in the cban discussion see a problem, but some are uncomfortable with a cban. It seems pretty natural that a couple alternatives would be proposed. FWIW. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 13:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Excuse me, BK, but what exactly do you find to be "random" in the proposal? I believe I laid out a very specific and particularized argument for how this addresses the massive amount of community concerns expressed here without relying on a sledgehammer.  Your implication that I am somehow trying to ramrod a proposal through with multiple bites at the apple is not only off-base, it is (bluntly speaking) reactionary and lazy. If you had actually taken the time to read my previous contributions to this thread, you would have seen that not only have I opposed both of the previous proposals, but I actually spent a lot of time over the days before Tamzin's first proposal trying to mitigate community ire at :boo: and urge restraint, despite that position being deeply unpopular. {{pb}} I feel this proposal balances community concerns against the best chance of retaining :boo:'s contributions in the longterm. If there was a more minimal sanction that I thought the community would have accepted, I very likely would have chosen that.  But speaking plainly, if you think its realistic to expect this thread to end in no sanction, I'd suggest you take another review of the discussion above.  I have not the slightest of issues with anyone opposing this sanction. But for you to imply I made this proposal flippantly, or as part of scattershot attempt to nail :boo: with a sanction no matter what, despite the amount of effort I put in to try to prevent a worst case scenario for them...well, that I do take exception to. I tend to expect much more careful commentary from you, honestly. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 15:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::: Sorry if you disagree. I didn't suggest your proposal was "flippant" at all, but when we're on the ''third'' possible sanction here (one which actually isn't that different from a CBAN, considering that they are appealable after 6 months), it is unsurprising that I might get the idea that people are looking for "some sanction that might get traction", rather than "whether that sanction is reasonable". [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::If a sanction 'gets traction' and there's consequent consensus for it then it is, in a consensus-based system, inherently 'reasonable', no? Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 15:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::: Yes, but how many attempts do we need?  Three is already too many, IMO. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm trying but struggling to understand this line of reasoning. Three different people have proposed three different solutions: that seems very standard in a discussion of how to solve a problem, be that a content dispute, workshopping a policy, or so on. It's pretty clear in both discussions above that the consensus is towards ''some'' sort of sanction -- there are one or two people advocating that the behaviour in question is fine as long as there really are problems with the articles in question, and possibly one or two suggesting a stern, logged warning, but nearly all objections to a CBAN are of the form "we need a block/ban, but it should be lighter than this". Similarly, nearly all objections to a TBAN are "this is too little". Concluding that the right approach is therefore to offer no sanction seems strange to me. I do see the (commendable) empathy that sitting through an ANI thread where your colleagues debate your shortcomings is a hugely unpleasant experience, but (as {{u|SchroCat}} says) the same empathy needs to be extended to those on the receiving end of the very behaviour that started this all off. Unless we have good reason to think that Bloodofox's behaviour will change without formal administrative action, letting them go without that is effectively inflicting the equally unpleasant -- if not more so -- experience of dealing with a repeatedly uncivil editor upon other members of the community. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 15:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::: To make myself clear, if someone had suggested three different sanctions in the first place and said to people "which of these (or none) do you think reasonable?", I don't think that is an issue. It was simply that reading this thread, we had the CBAN which has headed towards a lack of consensus, and ''then'' the TBAN was tried (that went down poorly), and ''then'' we had this one.  I am sure you will understand on that basis why I made that oppose comment above, even if you disagree with it. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::I suppose I understand the rationale, though I can't share your view of its merits. At any rate, thank you for clarifying it. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 16:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::To be clear, what I take exception to in your response is {{tq|"You can't just keep flinging random sanctions at the wall when it looks like the previous one may fail, in the hope that one of them will stick."}}.  I didn't support either of the previous two proposals  (in fact, I objected to both of them as unproductive), and arguably no one put more time and energy into trying to prevent a hasty or excessive sanction over course of this discussion.  I believe the proposal is the most minimal sanction that can be reasonably said to align with the community consensus/sentiment expressed above.  That is why I made it. Not to sandbag :boo:. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 15:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't think there's any fundamental disagreement. We heard a cry of ''burn the witch'' and some people didn't like that. Then we got ''duck the witch'' and some people didn't like that. Now we've got ''put the witch in jail and see if that makes her stop witching'' and most people seem to like that. I can only see that as consensus building. It could have been neater, but that's the breaks... Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 16:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per my comments above. I don't see this as unfair to BOO: he's had a couple of blocks, a visit to AE and a TBAN. This is also about the 'fairness' to other users who have to deal with him and who have faced an extremely unpleasant reception (''cf'' the Braucherei thread). This at least covers the relevant, multiple areas of his disruptive manner of interaction while stops well short of the nuclear option of the CBAN. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - I cannot find any reason not to oppose this. This is a good solution for the long term issues with the editor. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 13:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I agree with [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]]'s sentiment, but I also think this is closest to what policy dictates. As I said before, bloodofox should've gotten a short, preventative block when they made (yet another) personal attack here three days ago, but they didn't. At this point we, the community, just have to admit that no uninvolved admin has the guts to block this longtime editor for personal attacks and we'll have to do it ourselves. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 13:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*Eh. A cban is typically appealable in 6 months. With so many people, even those of us supporting a cban, agreeing that Bloodofox does good content work, he is a solid case for an appeal. The only difference between this sanction and a cban, then, is a cban requires communication of understanding of the problem and committing to doing better. Why is this way preferable, other than "escalating blocks for escalating blocks' sake"? '''Support as distant second choice'''  &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 13:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Well, there are a couple of ways in which this proposal was tailored to be less onerous than a CBAN.  For one thing, its terms have the block ending automatically at six month, not setting the clock for appeal there. While it's true that most CBANs are appealable after six months (and sometimes one year), in practice I don't think it would go well for :boo:.  The numbers and the sentiments here do not suggest that such an appeal would be easy going. {{pb}}There's also the factor that :boo: has struggled to produce a substantial mea culpa throughout this discussion. I believe their pride is hurt here and that if, after being blocked, they also had to make a detailed statement detailing what needed to change in their approach, they might just decide to stay off the project. That is not how I'd like to see this resolve, so I crafted for an option that would allow them to hopefully take the community's concerns on board over the duration of their enforced break, but that would also not cause them to suffer further bruised pride on returning. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 15:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This makes sense and hopefully will both get the message across about civility and retain an editor valued for their expertise. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 14:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. With regret I have to agree with UC and SchroCat. Other editors shouldn't have to put up with opposition so vehement. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Tim riley|<span style="color:# 660066">Tim riley</span>]][[User talk:Tim riley|<span style="color:#848484"> talk</span>]]</span>''' 14:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. Blocking without the right of appeal seems against the spirit of our philosophy; even LTAs get the right. And I can't see anything in WP:BLOCK or WP:APPEAL that justifies—or, for that matter, allows—overriding policy. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 14:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Fortuna, I don't want this to come off as glib, but I don't know a better way to say it: this ''is'' the standard policy.  Almost every [[WP:CBAN]] you see includes the language "this ban is first appealable after six months", or something to that effect; the only way this proposal differs from that usual standard is by making the end of this CBAN automatic at that point: that is to say, a much ''lower'' threshold to ending the CBAN, not a higher one.  The polices you cite ([[WP:BLOCK]] and [[WP:APPEAL]]), are only sufficient in themselves to describe administrative blocks.  Under WP:CBAN, the community has always had the ability to set extra conditions on preventing unblocks, and this authority is regularly exercised at ANI. The remedy for the blocked party if they think the community has been unreasonable in applying this prerogative is appeal to the Arbitration Commitee (see [[WP:UNBAN]]). ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 22:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I've only ever had productive interactions with Bloodofox on Wikipedia. As far as I can see he is right on the merits in just about every dispute he's been involved with. He's done a lot of great article work. That's not the only thing that matters but it's not nothing either. He could be more diplomatic, it's true, but he's not really ever been blocked before and six months seems like a lot. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] ([[User talk:Haukurth|talk]]) 16:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as they can just sit out the six months and potentially go right back to their behavior that brought them here in the first place. What is needed is an acknowledgement of the concerns raised here, and a clear statement that they will strive to do better, which would naturally be part of any request to be unbanned per the CBAN proposal. They have been an editor for 20 years, so they obviously know they should be following our editorial and behavioral policies and guidelines. So in my view, this proposal looks like we are just kicking the proverbial can down the road.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 16:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' <small>(involved)</small>: I prefer a longer sanction. Bloodofox makes content disputes ''more'' complicated—doesn't provide sources; constant implied expertise; won't participate in dispute resolution; derides and discredits anyone who doesn't agree with him; inflammatory as a feature and not a bug (i.e., he wants people to get mad so he can [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Isaidnoway-20250614173100-Isaidnoway-20250614101200|say stuff like this]]). His approach makes a venue like ANI significantly less effective, as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=875332364#Bloodofox previous ANI close] shows. It makes basic incivility and battlegrounding ''look'' chivalrous. Any outcome that passes the buck back to the community, including potentially new editors, harms editor retention and thus our content. I don't like the "escalating sanctions" argument for this reason: he benefits from an ANI model that makes resolving complex content disputes hard, if not impossible, notwithstanding issues dealing with "authority" figures here (i.e., the same reason for the previous Ignore All Rules unblock). 
:* A brief aside: I looked through some old posts and saw loads of attacks (and responses, frequently from now-retired editors) that could easily be in this thread. But—and being frank—looking through the early contribs made me sympathetic to anyone suggesting ArbCom review. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Der_Blutharsch&diff=prev&oldid=16852003 Edits like this] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%BDr&diff=prev&oldid=31922901 this] affect my interpretation of Tamzin's analysis regarding bloodofox's culture war-ry "all trans history is activism" take, attacks aimed at two publicly queer editors, etc. White supremacists, Nazis, and the far-right love Old Norse stuff (e.g., [[Soldiers of Odin]]; [[Odinism#Racial issues|Odinism]]; [[Asatru Folk Assembly]]). These are enough to make me think, yeah, maybe this needs more investigation.
: Anyway, I'm not that active at ANI. I've been a participant in, I think, 3-4 threads. I don't know how much grace we provide on the basis of process. That is probably why I don't understand why we are trying quite hard to retain an editor who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bloodofox&diff=prev&oldid=1294893679 actively resents collaboration via Talk] (cf. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Ermenrich-20250614163700-Bloodofox-20250612032100|this]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Obenritter-20250614175500-Ermenrich-20250614163700|this]]). Atrocious conduct that is, certainly over the past year, deeply net negative, and getting worse. Why extend a process-based courtesy to an editor who provides it to nobody else (i.e., ignoring ''19'' suggestions of dispute resolution across the FAR & Talk)? Regrettably I don't doubt disruption will continue given he is increasingly outraged every year. After 20 years of his tactics being effective I can't fathom why anyone thinks that it change because of a 6-month time out. Obviously I don't oppose it if this is what the community decides there is consensus for. If a CBAN is nuclear, a 6-month block is standing in the hall until class is over. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 16:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm going to protest your aside here. Two 2005 diffs in which Bloodofox fails to rise above the then-standards of Wikipedia in including unreferenced essayistic content, and shows an embarrassing lack of awareness of the gravity of a charge of nazi symbolism in Germany. Used to insinuate that Bloodofox and all who "love Old Norse stuff" may have something further to do with "White supremacists, Nazis, and the far-right". That's a smear by association that doesn't pass the smell test, and I will not let it pass without objection. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Wow, dredging up edits from twenty years ago. Yes, it's a smear. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 00:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::So, it's not enough evidence of a pattern if no one goes back far enough in the edit history, but if someone ''does'', it's a smear? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Your words, not mine. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 01:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Er, no? I haven't called this either of those things. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I didn't say " it's not enough evidence of a pattern if no one goes back far enough in the edit history, but if someone ''does'', it's a smear". Your "So" implies that perhaps that was my intended meaning, as you well know. Consider the possibility that I thought it was a bit much to dredge up edits from twenty years ago, ''and'' insinuating that Bloodofox and all who "love Old Norse stuff" may have something further to do with "White supremacists, Nazis, and the far-right" ''is'' a smear. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 01:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]], I think you should be reading @[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]' post with the knowledge that they themselves have a significant interest in Old Norse stuff. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Context is everything. Must say, seems odd that you're addressing only me—I was affirming what Yngvadottir said. 03:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::Would you mind quoting {{tq|bloodofox's culture war-ry "all trans history is activism" take}}? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 23:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]], see Tamzin's post at the top of the cban subthread. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I read it. What did BOO say that amounts to that? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]], I'll quote the relevant section from @[[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]]'s post: {{tq|He thinks Wade, a professional medievalist whose paper appears in the ''Routledge Handbook of Trans Literature'', is an activist source because he cites [[Leslie Feinberg]]. This is, transparently, an objection that a queer editor has cited a queer scholar who cited a queer thinker to analyze queer medieval history. The implication is clear: ''There is no queer medieval history. Anyone who writes about it is actually promoting an agenda.''}} bloodofox has referred to Erik Wade, a professional medievalist writing in his professional capacity for a literature handbook by an academic press, as an activist source. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Right, so he called a scholar an activist for citing an activist. He didn’t say anything like that all transgender history is activism. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 02:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I mean, you've essentially said the same thing twice though. Saying that a historian of trans people should never cite anyone who's done activism for trans people is like saying a historian of Judaism should never cite anyone who's done activism against antisemitism. It's both an impossible standard and makes less than zero sense. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|Saying that a historian of trans people should never cite anyone who's done activism for trans people}}
::::::::Good lord, can anyone advocating for a ban here do so without such distortions? Bloodofox did ''not'' say this. If you have to construct these wild paraphrases and can’t pull any quotes to support them, your case for sanctions is too weak. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::What Loki said, and also: when bloodofox says Wade – an academic writing for an academic publisher – is an "activist", what exactly is Wade supposed to be an activist <em>for</em>? For queer visibility? That's where you run up against the heavy implication that under this standard, any acknowledgement of queer medieval history is "activism", not real history. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 05:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::This is not really the right place to have this discussion, but the difference here would be between a specialist encyclopedia (which this is) and (say) an article or chapter on this topic in a much broader history book. It requires an understanding of how the academic publishing model works in the humanities and related topics. Wade absolutely is an academic writing for an academic publisher, but the whole point of a specialist encyclopedia on this topic is to increase the visibility and discourse on the topic (which is a good thing, for the avoidance of doubt). I would not have used the word 'activist' but I would take note of the framing used by Wade and look for other writing on the topic to see what other views there are. This is not an easy thing to do sometimes. It is something that in theory the editors of the encyclopedia are meant to do, but it is not always possible to assess if that happens. Sometimes, then, you have to look to reviews of the publication (here, one of a large number of encyclopedias produced by Routledge) to see how the wider academic community received it (if they paid it that level of attention). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 05:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Calling a single scholar an activist implies that an entire field is activism? And heavily, at that? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Tamzin's analysis looks on the money to me. Wade is (with apologies to him) a run-of-the-mill queer scholar of the Early Middle Ages; the Routledge Handbook is about as representative an example of the field as one could pick; citing thinkers within a movement but outside academia is completely standard, as I said at the FAR, in this and similar fields such as feminist, Marxist and so on historiography. Bloodofox could have produced evidence to say that one of these was untrue, but chose to simply repeat the claim that endorsing the ideas of [[Leslie Feinberg]] -- and let's be clear, Feinberg is not a protester on Twitter, but one of the defining figures of the field of gender studies -- makes the piece "activist scholarship". Even then, I'm concerned that arguing against sanctions here are missing the point. The outcomes of the content dispute(s) in which Bloodofox showed uncivil and uncollegial behaviour are completely irrelevant. Even if Bloodofox ''were'' completely in the right, [[WP:BRIE|that is not enough]]. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 06:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' in the interest of not letting perfect be the enemy of good here, but it's a second choice to a full CBAN. If this has been an issue since 2018 through multiple sanctions I do not have confidence that bloodofox would ever voluntarily stop. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 16:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]]: Regarding 2018, I can see a comment from 2011, from [[User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] (retired) that honestly could be in this thread at [[Talk:Thor]]'s archive: {{purple|from bloodofox's disparaging comments, since you are backing him up, I assumed your shared his reasoning}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThor&diff=444227490&oldid=444012161 chain diffs]), and they were indeed backing him up at great length. Looks like they were opposing the inclusion of any TV or film because Barsoomian was biased against pre-WW1 sources (?). Certainly looks like the same pattern going back further. Looks like tag teaming to me, honestly, with a contributor who is in this very thread on his side. I believe the problem goes back ''much'' further than 2018. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 17:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Now there's a pertinent 14 year old discussion. Not sure I would buy the "tag-teaming" accusation, or your description of what happened there, though.  As far as flinging linguini to the wall goes, one could also wonder why [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling/archive1&diff=next&oldid=1294090673 this recent comment] of yours in the very FAR which led to the filing of this request had to be revision deleted. Was it a policy violation, by any chance?  -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] ·   [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|  🍥]]</sup> 21:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::By definition, if something has been revision deleted, its contents are not to be made public -- I can't imagine, therefore, that we tolerate people speculating about what may have been in it, since the person who wrote it can't explain themselves. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 21:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::True, that said, admins or the person who made the edit could say whether it indeed fit [[WP:CRD]]. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] ·   [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|  🍥]]</sup> 21:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - based on my rationale in the CBAN section; which they can appeal in 6 months. I think that is a better solution, however if that proposal does not achieve consensus, then I would support this block. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 16:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Noting here for clarity that this my '''second choice''', based on the fact that the issue is not whether or not the editor is "right" about content, but rather about the ongoing battlegrounding and incivility in multiple venues across the encyclopedia. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 14:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per my explicit suggestion of this remedy above. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - six months will be enough for Bloodofox to have a chance to adjust their attitude, while leaving open the door for more sanctions if necessary.
:[[User:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: blue; color:white; padding:3px">'''''MiasmaEternal'''''</span>]][[User_talk:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: black; color: white; padding:3px">☎</span>]] 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - Content-war PvP nonsense. Black Kite nails the situation above. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 23:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''', as second choice compared to a CBAN. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 03:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Second choice''' per Rhododendrites and PMC—although pedantically I'd argue that a community-imposed unappealable block is a ''ban'', not just a block. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 04:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. It's not appropriate to try and hamper the community as to when something can be appealed or not. No comment on whether a block or community ban may be appropriate - but trying to say that it is not appealable is an improper restriction on the future community. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; [[User:berchanhimez|me]] &#124; [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 07:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per my oppose in the CBan section and per the concerns raised by [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] (it used to be a principle to lay out alternatives at the start, rather than workshop as you go along, which can skew the discussion and polling). I am sure if, for example, evidence came to light of battleground behaviour by some of those supporting these proposals, then the community would want to revisit such a block. What is not being seen here is the views of the editors who have had productive interactions with Bloodofox, most of whom will not be aware of this discussion. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 07:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' I don't actually think any of these are specifically tailored to preventing or reforming the conduct, which is largely incivility towards other editors over a range of topics. In my mind, either it's unfixable and we indef, or we have a sanction where we try to remedy the problem. I haven't interacted with them enough to be at the "enough is enough" stage that some of the other users are, and I think at this point I'd be happier with a formal warning that an indef is on the table if this doesn't improve, along with a limited, possibly voluntary short term topic ban for some of the topics listed above just to cool things down a little bit. That being said, I'm not against this. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 08:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' all these repeated requests feel like the Wikipedia equivalent of barratry. After reading the FAR I can understand bloodofox's frustration. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 10:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' based on my rationale in the CBAN proposal vote. Also not impressed with the stream of proposed sanctions being procured as the previous one approaches failure. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 16:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm going to make one last effort to set the record straight here, and then I'm washing my hands of this entire mess of a discussion and its multi-directional ABF, and let the chips fall as they may for both :boo: and the community.  Because this is about the fourth time that someone has implied that this proposal is part of an effort to "get" :boo: at all costs, a fly-by characterization that does not even remotely reflect what is going on here, as would be immediately obvious to anyone who did their due diligence in reviewing the discussion before !voting. Here's what actually happened and what motivated this proposal:{{pb}}First off, I am not involved in any of the underlying disputes and have no axe to grind against :boo:.   On the contrary, for the first few days of this discussion, I was the only one making consistent efforts to resolve this matter without a sanction. I attempted to build a bridge between :boo: and their accusers, hoping that concerns could be addressed on both sides, and I have argued repeatedly for [[WP:ROPE]].   In the first few days, Yngvadottir and I were the only advocates for restraint as dozens of (reasonably) irate editors flooded the discussion to share their own stories of frustrating run-ins with :boo:. While sympathetic to those complaints, I still didn't see any reason why the concerns couldn't be addressed more constructively than with a sanction. {{pb}} However, a meeting of the minds proved impossible because :boo: was more than a little [[WP:IDHT]], and the complainants were unyielding in wanting concrete action to be taken.  After a series of back-and-forths with individual editors, I decided to let the matter drop, because I did not wish to [[WP:BLUDGEON]] this discussion with my appeals on :boo:'s behalf. Because at the end of the day, the complaints had merit and I felt that if I hadn't managed to convince anyone to endorse a lighter touch at that point, I wasn't going to.{{pb}}  I then was uninvolved in the thread for about a day and a half.  When I next checked on it, I discovered the situation had escalated to sanction proposals, and very severe proposals at that. The full CBAN proposal felt excessive to me, given the lack of previous stepped-sanctions, so I opposed it.  Likewise, I felt the TBAN proposal was poorly-considered and opposed that too.  I made <u>''this''</u> proposal hoping it would be adopted instead of the (still popular at the time) CBAN.  Far from being an attempt to get :boo: at any cost (as one editor implied despite all evidence to the contrary, with others following suit) it was meant to be a more measured alternative. I specifically chose the least severe sanction I thought might be adopted, given the tone of the discussion at that time.  If anyone thinks I relished the idea of proposing a block for a veteran editor a week before their 20th anniversary on the project, they can very much think again.  My primary aim was to throw a significant bone to those who wanted action while still keeping a subject matter expert from being CBANNED to the tune of an outright indef. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*::Also, bluntly speaking, not only are comments implying that this was a ruthless effort to corner :boo: completely and obviously false, but those arguing that there is something odd or inappropriate in the procedural history of this discussion are also completely off-base.  There have been, at a minimum, many hundreds of discussions at ANI over the years that have included three or more proposals made in rapid succession.  It is not in the remotest sense atypical for a discussion here to proceed through multiple stages where the range of appropriate responses is narrowed to something the community can agree upon.{{pb}} Nor is :boo: a victim here that needs to be shielded from mob mentality.  I have consistently felt the best solution here would be rapprochement between :boo: and those they have rubbed wrong, rather than a sanction.  But neither did the volume and intensity of the complaints against them in this discussion come out of nowhere.  A substantial amount of evidence has been presented that :boo: has for years deployed a combination of aggression and gatekeeping in their rhetoric during disputes.  That '''''does''''' have to change, or they won't have much of a future here, regardless of how this discussion ends. Again, I'd be perfectly comfortable with a sanction-less result to this discussion--it's what I advocated for from the start.   But anyone who implies, intentionally or otherwise, that this discussion is part of a meritless witch-hunt against :boo: is doing them absolutely no favors: it is bar-none the very last thing they need to hear from us if we are going to keep them on-project and benefit from their knowledge and contributions. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::FWIW I - and I suspect many, many others, saw this proposal as a sensible response to the far-too heavy CBAN and off-target topic ban. It's a reasonable and sensible compromise and has garnered broad support, more votes than oppose and (IMHO) stronger reasoning from support voters. There is a wide sense that ''something'' needs to happen. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 04:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::Huh. I didn’t imply any of this. I said I’m not impressed with the stream of sanctions that emerges again with every successive failure, which is true. I didn’t say anything about you, because it’s not a personal comment. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 22:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::: I'm sorry, but intentionally or not, that does imply that there was a conscious objective in this proposal to create a back-up plan to make sure :boo: got sanctioned.  Which was really the opposite of what was going on here: I was trying to prevent an indefinite CBAN by proffering instead the most limited alternative sanction I thought the community might accept instead.  The CBAN discussion was not "approaching failure" at the time that I made this proposal: it had strong support.  It still does, but at the time support was more uniform. This proposal was offered as an alternative to minimize the consequences for :boo:, not to a cast a wider net for them. {{pb}}Now, I'm happy to AGF that your intended meaning was (somehow) not to imply that the proposal was a redundancy to make sure that :boo: got blocked, if you say so. But if I do that, I must also ask you to realize that such a reading is unavoidable, given what you wrote. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''', see my oppose to the CBAN proposal above. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support''' - Having read the history of personal attacks that turn content disputes into conduct, something needs to be done.  There is no right answer, and this is a less wrong answer.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''support''' as a compromise. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 01:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't like the idea of introducing time limited blocks that are unappealable. Editors who are blocked can appeal during the block, editors who are community banned aren't put on the naughty step for a time out. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 01:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
** '''note for the closer''': AD and a few other voters oppose the no-appeal clause while not commenting on the substance of the block – I'd suggest that the no-appeal clause be treated as severable from the block itself, if those opposes would drag this towards a no consensus close. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 02:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
**:For clarity I'm neutral on any block or tban separately proposed. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 09:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' IDK why this would be expected to pass if the proposal above it failed <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;">[[User talk: Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;background:#800080;">pbp</span>]]</sub> 03:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*:The above proposal failed largely because people viewed it as too narrow, so it should go without saying why a broader sanction would be more amenable to many. Do you have a substantive objection, or is this oppose merely a procedural misunderstanding? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 03:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''', unfortunately, given bloodofox's lack of later participation, which IMO should not be rewarded.  Civility is one of the easiest things to fix, in theory.  Really just committing to accepting that as well as accepting that bloodofox's "opponents" are not actually demons out to destroy scholarship with lies would have gone a long way.  As that was not forthcoming, there's no other choice than here.  I think bloodofox has a lot to offer and did a lot of good work on Wikipedia, but this level of incivility and ownership just is not worth the cost. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 03:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
** This also has nothing to do with bloodofox's conduct himself, but I have to say that the "oppose" rationales on claims of "too many sanctions proposed" make absolutely zero sense, and should be entirely discarded as not engaging with the very real conduct problem here.  It'd be one thing if a single editor was proposing five different sanctions, but these were proposed by three different editors, and one proposed sanction was very quickly shot down.  What exactly are people who support an escalating sanction to convey the seriousness of the matter to do?  Mind control the earlier proposers to only have proposed the remedy they support?  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
* I'm inclined to agree with a six month ban as a compromise, and am really pretty befuddled by all the oppose votes that ultimately stem from different people having different ideas on how to resolve the same issue. <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small>  04:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:'''Oppose''' non-appealable sanctions, period. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' What Levivich said. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 15:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' and support warnings as my comments indicate below. [[User:LuckyLouie|&#45; LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 13:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:*'''Oppose''' - Since when do we impose non-appealable sanctions in cases like this? This process is beginning to devolve into something I don't like.
:[[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 00:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

*'''Support''', quoting {{u|LokiTheLiar}}, {{tq|in the interest of not letting perfect be the enemy of good}}. As an uninvolved editor reading through this discussion, with no opinion on any of the relevant content disputes, the long-term incivility issues here ''must'' be actioned upon. There is significant (and reasonable) opposition to both the proposed CBAN and GENSEX TBAN, but a simple warning (or worse yet, no action) is clearly not appropriate here. {{u|Bloodofox}} is a skilled contributor but their attitude towards other editors is unacceptable - being a good editor, or being "right", does not excuse incivility. I hope that they can take this block period to reflect and return to making constructive edits without lowering themselves to engaging in personal attacks. [[User:Ethmostigmus|Ethmostigmus]] 🌿 ([[User talk:Ethmostigmus|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Ethmostigmus|contribs]]) 04:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:'''Oppose,''' per my reasoning in opposing the ''other'' sanctions:  in essence, '''(a)''' placing  "somewhat abrasive Talk-page interactions" as the numerator over "significant & erudite contributions" as the denominator, or anything similar (problem comments / total edits, uncivil interactions / time, etc.) results in a pretty favorable ratio here, seems t'me; '''(b)''' "abrasive" might merit a warning of "hey be more nicer please", at worst, but nothing I've looked at so far seems to warrant ''unappealable sanction'' (I mean, 'snot like we're talking horrible slurs & X-rated vulgarities being hurled at every opportunity, ''vel sim.''!); and '''(c)''' "being correct is not defense enough" is probably a good policy & I support it—but being correct, contributing significantly ''in re'' the main purpose of our ''encyclopedia,'' is not nothin', neither:  one abrasive domain-expert will nevertheless serve the purported function of Wikipedia more-so than some larger number of polite-but-confused editors, it seems to me.  (Of course, "polite ''and'' expert" is even better.)
:I'd rather not lose folks like bloodofox or @[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]], since I often gain from reading their discussions (& edits).  
:(It also sort of seems like there's some personal history here, between the major players; I don't know if this should actually be considered too important—I mean, it might be said that's how one often becomes ''aware'' of a "problem user" in the first place, right—but... I dunno, conflict → several users on the one "side" start ''three different attempted sanctions one after t'other...''  I don't know if I like the optics, I think is how the kids say it these days.
:(I was certainly appalled when I first encountered this situation—it seemed ridiculously thin-skinned of several involved, esp. as I'd only personally ever seen what I consider very minor abrasiveness from bloodofox (and some of it was fairly understandable, too)—but after reading through more links, I am more sympathetic to the "Support"-ers than I was initially.  ''Not'' enough so to not Oppose, though—and there are some attempted distortions I've noticed here & there; e.g., "[bloodofox says that] a historian of trans people should never cite anyone who's done activism for trans people", ''except he never said that at all''... that sort of thing just makes me feel like some personal animus has crept in here, Iunno.)
:[[User:Himaldrmann|Himaldrmann]] ([[User talk:Himaldrmann|talk]]) 09:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' non-appealable sanctions, full stop.[[User:Halbared|Halbared]] ([[User talk:Halbared|talk]]) 09:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' clearly meant as a [[Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive|punishment]]/“cooldown” block, especially since it’s non-appealable— meaning it’s not so much intended to say “you can come back if you promise to stop doing this” but rather “you must serve out this block as punishment for doing this”. A temporary block is IMO only useful if there’s an urgent reason like an editor not dropping the [[WP:STICK]] during a dispute. A long-term pattern of subpar behavior is not that. The only appropriate solutions to that are an indef (which is disproportionate) or a Tban (which already failed). [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 07:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

===Procedural points===
Pulling out a couple of procedural points here, mainly centred around awareness and visibility of these proposals to both the wider community and to [[User:Bloodofox]].
*(1) The section header that shows up for users using the mobile phone version of Wikipedia simply says "User:Bloodofox". It says nothing about a community ban. This section was added several days later by Tamzin. The collapsed ANI threads showing on mobile view unfortunately allow community ban proposals like this to end up 'hidden' to the subset of the community who cannot be bothered to uncollapse the thread. This can skew the polling.
*(2) User:Bloodofox has not contributed since the comments made here on 12 June. The community ban proposal was made on 14 June. They may be unaware that a community ban discussion is taking place.
*(3) Tamzin does not appear to have notified Bloodofox (either by ping or talk page message) of the Community Ban proposal.
There is a reason why this happens in sometimes chaotic and sprawling ANI discussions. This is both why I avoided ANI for many years and why I think at one point it was proposed that community ban discussions needed to take place at WP:AN rather than ANI but I may be way out of date here. Anyway, I hate editing on my phone, so if anyone can help work out what to do here (e.g. leave a talk page notification for Bloodofox and maybe adjust the main header to reflect that a community ban discussion has resulted from the initial discussion), that would help a lot. I won't do this myself as I am not 100% sure what the current procedure is for community ban discussions regarding such notifications and visibility. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 05:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I pinged BOO in the edit summary of the ban proposal. I can't very well control their decision to not edit, but there are no procedural defects here. BOO has been extended every courtesy we extend to anyone else nominated for a ban. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 05:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::This feels like an effort to try to invalidate a consensus-based discussion based on nitpicking that doesn't even have a policy basis. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 05:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::It is because community bans are a serious sanction that there are procedures and guidance that should be followed. Could you please engage in good faith with what I said. How would you feel if you took a break and came back to find it had escalated to this? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 06:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I would probably not have opted to take a break during a lengthy discussion about my behavior, so as to ensure that nothing important was missed. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 06:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hmm-hmm. ANI flu does exist, but so do other events in people's lives. I have learnt to always err on the side of not making assumptions about why someone hasn't come back to a discussion. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 07:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::I don't think it's ANI flu or a freak emergency – I think bloodofox has probably recognized that they can't improve their position by protesting more than they already have, and they're not planning on admitting wrongdoing. I think they're watching this discussion and would have been aware of the CBAN proposal with or without a ping, but they've taken their hands off the keyboard. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 07:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::The person who introduced the "take a break" phrasing was you, Carcharoth. If you recall, the question as asked was "How would you feel if you took a break...", and my response was to say I would not have taken one. Please don't try to frame this as though ''I'' was making any kind of assumption about why bloodofox was not currently editing. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 08:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for clarifying. I thought it was obvious that the phrasing "How would you feel if you took a break and came back to find it had escalated to this?" was actually meant to prompt consideration and empathy with Bloodofox, not to be a question literally about how you would feel. The phrase "take a break" was not intended to be precise, but there is every possibility that is what this is. An attempt to walk away for a few days from a heated situation. No way to tell. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 11:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I'm glad to hear you found my clarification helpful. We wouldn't want someone reading this thread to think you were accusing me of making assumptions based on phrasing you introduced. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 18:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm not going to lie, Carcharoth, this is pretty cringe. There are no procedural issues here. You haven't cited a single guideline, just your feeling that the guy you like deserves special treatment. Be an adult and step back like the rest of us, and let the community reach whatever consensus it reaches. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 06:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Please don't make this personal. I would do the same for any editor where I noticed this (you included). I genuinely believe that there will be people currently actively editing who will have missed this discussion for the reasons I give. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 07:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well I look forward to seeing you do so for ~100% of CBAN proposals in the future, then. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 07:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Any editor where I notice this. So not 100%, no. I did ask you not to make this personal. I am still at a loss as to why you have said "the guy you like" (no idea where you get that from) and "be an adult". I am not aware of any past history I have with Bloodofox (but might be forgetting). You, rightly, disclosed your past interactions in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295494347 your post three days ago] when you proposed the community ban. I went to that diff to check whether the ping had worked, and noticed that you pinged [[User:Generalissima]] as well. That is absolutely the right thing to do (they started the thread), but the more I have been thinking about this the more it makes me uneasy. The past history here feels all wrong. I would have had no problem with someone uninvolved proposing the ban, but it does feel too easy to draw lines here connecting events. It looks bad, even though you disclosed the mentor-mentee relationship. Disclosing something like that does not mean it can simply be discounted. Anyway, you left the closer (and those reading this, not all of whom will be commenting) to make their own judgement on that. I will post something about the timings below and leave this here. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 11:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::No past history with Bloodofox? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Carcharoth&offset=20250515&limit=5 You're on the same side in the content dispute that immediately precipitated this.] We could also get into your recent Wikipediocracy posts about trans issues <small>(an account you [[User:Carcharoth/Additional_notes#10_years_on_Wikipedia|disclose on-wiki]])</small>, which were an explicit response to my criticism at [[WP:A/R/C]] of people who push the POV you favor, and immediately preceded your showing up here to oppose my proposal to ban someone who wants to remove or downplay coverage of trans history. So yes, I've disclosed my bias here. Have you disclosed yours? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 12:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I thought the involvement in the immediate history was obvious. Yes, I have posted in that discussion on that talk page, and I have posted at the FAR [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=1296046628 here]. I don't think it is helpful to characterise what is taking place there as "sides" (that is battleground language). It is more nuanced than that (I am coming round to the viewpoint that Wade's conclusions on Feinberg should be explicitly mentioned in the 'Bæddel and bædling' article). What I meant by no past history, is that (responding to your "the guy you like" comment) I have not had (to my knowledge) any extensive prior interactions with Bloodofox, though I might have done, as it is difficult to remember everything. I had forgotten about that 10-year-old page you found in my userspace. Trip down memory lane. Thank you! (It really might be best to leave this here.) [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you, Tamzin. I missed that you had pinged Bloodofox in your edit summary. I personally would have left a talk page notice, but whether you think a ping is sufficient is up to you. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 06:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:I hate to disagree with the same person twice in 10 minutes, but making sure that an editor who is being proposed for a ban is aware of the fact seems praiseworthy to me. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 07:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::I certainly wouldn't have minded an inquiry as to "Hey did you ever notify BOO of the ban thread?" I'm objecting to an entire separate subsection alleging procedural irregularities, 1/3 of which was a valid concern but based on a faulty premise and 2/3 of which is complete nonsense (almost all CBAN proposals happen under level-3 headings, and are never delayed just because someone gets [[WP:ANI flu|ANI flu]]). <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 07:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:Carcharoth is certainly correct on the mobile point. I was alarmed to open this thread after a couple of days by chance, and see that the complaint had progressed to CBAN and other proposals. That's not an attack on Tamzin at all, but I will perhaps suggest a corrective to the mobile dev team. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 23:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
One more (hopefully final point): I believe the 72 hours given in [[WP:CBAN]] runs from the point Tamzin put up the proposal (at 03:20, 14 June 2025 UTC)? The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=973319444#RfC:_Increase_minimum_length_for_site_ban_discussions RfC from 2020] linked there (increasing the minimum duration from 24 hours to 72 hours) is interesting reading. I was reading that to see what the general feeling on this was then. I also wasn't imagining it that WP:AN is the "preferred" venue, but I have seen enough ANI threads evolve into CBAN discussions to know that the ideal rarely happens in practice, including giving the person facing the ban a chance to respond, but I am sure whoever closes this will be able to address that. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 12:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

===Proposal: warning (bloodofox)===
[[User:bloodofox]] is warned that comments like:
*"If you can't function on even the most basic level on Wikipedia, then maybe spend your time doing something else." [[Special:Diff/1254718222|[1]]]
*"obnoxious ... topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about" [[Special:Diff/1260882954|[2]]]
*calling editors censors ("would-be censors" [[Special:Diff/1284695028|[3]]], "I encourage any editor to aggressively push back at any attempts at censorship, which is exactly what this is." [[Special:Diff/1281853556|[4]]])
*callings editors "activists" [[Special:Diff/1281730633|[5]]]
*bludgeoning and aggressively doubling down on accusations of RGW [[Special:Diff/1281360961|[6]]] [[Special:Diff/1281713553|[7]]], "RGW crusades" [[Special:Diff/1281377899|[8]]], "Wikipedia editors who call out and reject clear examples of [[WP:RGW]] are helping the project and should be commended for the effort, while attempts at [[WP:RGW]] should be aggressively rooted out." [[Special:Diff/1281730633|[9]]], "That's an explicit attempt at WP:RGW and should see ''hard'' pushback." [[Special:Diff/1281853556|[10]]], "No, this is about as clear a case of [[WP:RGW]] I've seen and I will highlight it." [[Special:Diff/1282182918|[11]]]
*"If this is how you're operating on this site, someone needs to comb through your other edits." [[Special:Diff/1282182918|[12]]]
...are violations of [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]], and admins are encouraged to block for any further violations.
*'''Support''' as proposer. (I sympathize with :boo:'s request for specific diffs, so I've listed some that I think are clear policy violations; some of the diffs are repeated because they fall into multiple categories.) There's a well-known hole in our sanctions regime for civility, particularly for situations that fall in between "nothingburger" and "insta-ban." [[WP:ABAN]]s, [[WP:TBAN]]s, and [[WP:PBLOCK]]s aren't applicable here because the conduct isn't limited to a particular page or topic area. Blocks aren't appropriate now because [[WP:NOTPUNITIVE]]. The conduct isn't so extreme or frequent as to merit a [[WP:CBAN]] (IMO, but also in the opinion of about half the voters in the proposal above). But I don't think we should do nothing. The advantage of a warning, even though there have been previous warnings from years ago, is that it documents the policy violation, documents that it happened now and that the community agrees it was a policy violation, and gives admins clearer guidance to block if the policy violation is repeated. I hope it's not repeated, but if it is, I hope the warning will make it easier for an admin (or the community) to impose further preventative sanctions next time. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' because again I don't think perfect should be the enemy of good. But I do think this isn't enough, so this is second choice for me behind any sanction with teeth. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 18:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''':  I agree this is needed.  Gentle persuasion isn't a great strategy for [[boiling frogs]], but sometimes it can net you a [[The North Wind and the Sun|fancy coat]].   -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] ·   [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|  🍥]]</sup> 19:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*Not going to oppose, but also reluctant to pretend a warning means anything at all regarding issues that have been raised by many people many times over many years in many topic areas, with one topic ban and formal warning in the past. I don't read any of the oppose !votes above as the sort that would have supported if only there were a second formal warning on the books. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 19:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*:For me, it's not the quantity of the warnings but the recency. (Of course people will have different views on how recent is recent enough.) [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*::Different views on how recent is recent enough indeed. The formal warning was in December 2023. How many days should this one be considered valid? &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 22:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I suspect you are making reference to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive326#Bloodofox|this warning]] related to religious views in the Falun Gong AE case?  It is of course still valid, but unless I'm mistaken nothing in evidence here shows a violation of that warning?  This warning, on the other hand, is not narrowly construed as that one was, it covers all the civility and bludgeoning bases.  Imagine that a closer concludes that the indef proposal does not have consensus but that the time-limited proposal does. There will be no grovel session to be closed with flashing hazards when editing rights are restored.  Having a clearly-formulated broad warning written now does not seem to me to be a bad idea, whether further action is taken or not, as it clearly guides admins concerning what people who looked into this case thought was needed.   -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] ·   [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|  🍥]]</sup> 00:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, that's the one -- the warning about personalizing disputes/speculating about motives coming out of a case based on fundamental civility/agf/npa stuff, sitting alongside the other [informal] pointers, suggestions, warnings, grievances, and pleas of the past, as well as a topic ban that was needed in an altogether separate area, not to mention two decades of experience with wikipolicy. But to your point: let's say, against all odds, we incredibly missed a diff and it turned out there had been a broad warning on civility issues in the past roughly identical to this one. Would you be switching to support on the cban above? If so, I concede this would be a nonzero outcome. <small>Though I wouldn't blame you for declining to answer a hypothetical.</small> Either way, I don't think I have anything else useful to add to this thread. Its trajectory makes me think my time tonight is better spent in articlespace. <small>(turns out our articles on NYC mayoral candidates are pretty bad.)</small> &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 01:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Already here, I have not opposed the IAR unappealable time-limited block, admittedly ''in part'' because it saves sinking time into one (or more) of those often-grudgy appeals procedures.  -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] ·   [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|  🍥]]</sup> 02:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::::180-365; one or two a year is a reasonable allotment to any editor. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 03:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's clear there's a problem. It's equally clear, that while most of us agree there is a problem, we don't agree about how to solve it.  A logged warning that makes it clear a continuation of the problem will lead to more severe consequences seems a reasonable step we can take. It might not be ''enough'' but if it isn't we can address future issues when they arise. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Weak Oppose''' as an empty gesture.  If we aren't going to '''do''' anything, we shouldn't '''do''' '''anything''', rather than saying that we aren't going to do any thing now and might do something in a few months.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weak%20sauce weak sauce]. bloodofox already knows that comments like those listed are against policy, and there is no requirement that admins block for future violations, but instead, left to their discretion. This proposal also lacks a provision that bloodofox acknowledge their problematic behavior and a commitment from him to do better. If previous warnings have already been ignored, then I have no expectation that this warning will curtail their chronic behavioral problems.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 21:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*:I would like to change your and Robert's minds about this. I think that while this shouldn't be your first choice, you shouldn't oppose unless you actually think bloodofox has done nothing wrong at all here.
*:The reason is, imagine how this goes next time bloodofox gets taken to ANI or AE. If we don't even warn him, he can easily say "Oh yeah, 6-12 months ago there was a big hullabaloo about my behavior, but there wasn't even consensus for a warning! Clearly that means the community didn't think I actually did anything wrong." And it's not even a bad argument! That usually is what that means!
*:I think opposing sanctions solely because they're too weak is assuming something way past good faith of the next group to take this up. It's assuming that the next group to take this up will go through a ton of extra effort to preserve the exact intent of your !vote. You need to believe that, even after a consensus has been reached, the next group of people will read this entire long discussion down to your specific opinion and realize that you and a handful of others were opposing from the opposite side of normal, and furthermore that that will be taken as evidence that if this handful of people did not oppose than consensus *would* have been reached on a warning, and then even furthermore that they take that as equivalent to a warning. Why make all those assumptions when you can just support a warning? [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Sure. I support a cban because I believe this behaviour is chronic and will not change. If the behaviour indeed does not change, following this proposal, bloodofox will get to do it one more time, and then will be blocked. Late is better than never. So be it. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose as insufficient''', though clearly preferable to doing literally nothing. The arguments in favour seem to badly misunderstand either/both the policy and the situation. We have "[[WP:NPA|"No" personal attacks]] actually means that occasional personal attacks are fine, or that personal attacks are actually a good thing if the other editor is wrong/not very skilled. [[WP:CONLEVELS]] applies here -- a small group of editors can't overrule site-wide consensus, manifested in clearly-worded policy. We then have the line that this is somehow a first or early offence, and therefore sanctions should be applied ''next'' time -- when there is clear evidence of this behaviour happening over ''years'' (and far more than occasionally in the recent period), despite formal warnings from admins and topic bans, and without any acknowledgement of wrongdoing. This ''is'' next time. A warning in this situation would be clearly insufficient and send a worrying message about the standards of behaviour the community will tolerate. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 06:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
*I'm not going to oppose or support, because I think this is a hollow proposal. A CBAN is best for the community given the range and quantity of harmful behaviors to multiple editors in multiple topics spanning across years, from 2016, 2018, 2020, 2023, 2024, 2025. The unacceptable behaviors are a chronic pattern, and there have already been various warnings. How much more harm is OK before it becomes not-OK?  If there was some inkling that BOO was willing to take responsibility I might feel differently, but there's just radio silence. There have been no attempts apologize or efforts to see things through the other person's lens; no movement towards mending fences. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 14:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
* Why wasn't this just a 24 hour sitewide block for PAs (or whatever length deemed suitable), increasing incrementally for future violations all the way to indef? Seems like a nobrainer to me if we're looking to actually correct boo's behaviour. How on earth have they never been blocked for PAs, [[WP:FOC]] isn't advice, it's policy. Can admins just be bold please? [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 20:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this or escalating blocks. I'm not convinced that a CBAN is merited in this case. I guess I don't see the civility issues as more disruptive than pushing FRINGE ideas. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 20:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Buidhe|Buidhe]], this presumes that everyone bloodofox has been nasty to has been pushing FRINGE ideas, which is far from the case. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
*::I certainly don't mean that that so I apologize if I was unclear. However, in some cases the editor was arguing against FRINGE editors and in those cases I see those editors as more disruptive. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 21:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::I don't mean any personal offense here Buidhe, but that is precisely the attitude which has enabled and encouraged the most problematic behaviour being discussed here, and similar from many of our most quarrelsome users in community spaces involving discussion of fringe content. {{pb}}For one thing, there is never going to be universal agreement (even among experienced, good-faith editors) whom the POV pushers are in FRINGE spaces, so the notion that one should get a free pass (or just reduced accountability) for violating CIV, AGF and other behavioural norms, so long as they "really, really convinced" it is for the good of the project in anti-FRINGE terms is absolutely useless as a standard or an operational rule of thumb. {{pb}}But even more to the core of the matter, even if you think FRINGE violations are, as a class, overwhelmingly more damaging to the work of the project than behavioural violations (which I think falls apart as a generalized presumption pretty quickly under close scrutiny), it would still be a manifestly bad idea to encourage that FRINGE POV pushing/SPAs be met with lowered standards for conduct from the regular editorial corps.  Because flame warring doesn't actually solve those issues in any way. It just makes the entire periphery of the content area that much more susceptible to [[WP:disruption]], obfuscation of the actual editorial solutions, and community time sinks sorting it all out. {{pb}} We don't have a special need in FRINGE areas to let hotheads off the leash to engage in flame wars to stop the self-promoters and credulous POV pushers.  What we need in FRINGE areas are editors with the '''''<u>exact opposite</u>''''' proclivities.  Contributors who remain unflappable, who follow our standard rules of conduct and dispute resolution with great deference to civility and form (even when it involves a huge dollop of extra patience for the [[WP:NOTHERE]] nonsense), and who <u>thereby rob the flame wars (AND the POV pushing) of oxygen, rather than throwing gasoline on the situation</u>. {{pb}} And believe me, having spent time in these areas, I know that a lot of our contributors doing anti-fringe work are just that, and some of the emotional reactions come from occasional burn-out from dealing with all the nonsense.  But the area also attracts an outsized number of users who, while in some cases useful for their subject matter expertise and/or general editorial experience on the project, also have this mentality of self-appointed guardianship and a sense that they should be allowed to, ''at their discretion'', abrogate our normal behavioural expectations--because showing short shrift to those rules is the "lesser evil" when compared to what the other guy (whom they perceive, correctly or not, to be a POV pusher) is supposedly doing.{{pb}}  That is absolutely wrong, it is what gets editors like :boo: in trouble, and it is the very last sentiment we ought to be validating in front of them in a situation like this, where we are trying desperately to arrest their problematic behaviours while retaining their presence here for their productive capabilities. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 01:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::I'm not arguing that anti-FRINGE editors should get a jail free card or exception to any policy—what I'm arguing is the converse and perhaps that's where we disagree.
*::::I see Wikipedia's one and only goal to provide quality content for our readers, and I think all the policies and guidelines exist in service of this goal. People who are actively advocating for our content to be worse are directly making the encyclopedia worse, while policies based on civility, behavior, edit warring and so forth are intended to prevent indirect harms to our content. Some of these indirect harms could certainly be worse than direct harms caused by a proFRINGE editor, depending on the case. However, I would argue "being wrong is disruptive" and this is often underestimated. Obviously, enforcing this would be difficult and problematic as no one can be right 100% of the time and we cannot agree what "right" is in all cases.
*::::So I do see it as mistaken that editors who cause harm to the encyclopedia by being wrong (even in cases of source misrepresentation, pov-pushing, and the like) often seem to face less consequences for their actions than editors whose errors occur in the course of interpersonal conflict, but perhaps that's unavoidable as in the latter case there is an aggrieved party to complain.
*::::I don't think any of the above exonerates bloodfox but I also don't think there is likely to be a consensus to ban them at this time. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 05:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::No, I agree probably they will not be, and indeed, that's the outcome I have hoped for: they shouldn't be banned under these circumstances.  And look, I'm sure we agree on more than we disagree about here, but I will make this important observation. It's not just the indirect consequences that we have to worry about when overzealous editors decide they are not subject to the normal rules of conduct on this project, because their unfettered truth-speaking is too important to the work of stopping the 'pro-fringe' crowd. Because you are quite right that those impacts to editor retention and issues with community time-sinks, and general project atmosphere and moral (the things that I assume you mean by "indirect impacts" to our work of producing reliable content for the reader) are all issues which follow from contributors who feel the normal behavioural rules do not apply to them.  {{pb}} But also, they are just directly terrible for the very issues they think they are the panacea for. The multiply and magnify the very variety of issue they believe they are the solution to.  They give cover and excuses to editors who would otherwise be easy for our processes to mark.  They allow discussions to be more easily diverted from the substantive issues.  In worst case scenarios, they feed the conspiracy theory nutbags on social media and promote recruitment for meat farms.  And editor who spends 90% of their time trying to combat fringe, but who has the wrong temperament for that work, has a fraction of the overall cost-benefit value to that task than someone who spends 10% of their time combating fringe, but does so by consistently following the rules. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 10:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::: I will follow [[WP:COAL]] and not enter a Pong-like discussion here, but evidence-free, broad-stroke descriptions of non-fringe-pushing editors such as {{tq|many of our most quarrelsome users}} are the opposite of helpful, are hurtful and offensive on a personal level, and seemingly demonstrate bad faith on your part. Additional bad faith is revealed by implying that non-fringe-pushing editors are problematic ''as a group'': {{tq|What we need in FRINGE areas are editors [...] who follow our standard rules of conduct}}; and {{tq|the area also attracts an outsized number of users who [...] have this mentality of self-appointed guardianship and a sense that they should be allowed to, at their discretion, abrogate our normal behavioural expectations}}. Lastly, having edited in such topics for quite a while now, I can not think of a single, non-fringe-pushing editor who has ever, in your words, {{tq|encourage[d] that FRINGE POV pushing/SPAs be met with lowered standards for conduct from the regular editorial corps}}. [[User:JoJo Anthrax|JoJo Anthrax]] ([[User talk:JoJo Anthrax|talk]]) 08:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Perhaps you missed where I've repeatedly indicated that I am not talking about the average editor working to check fringe contributions.  But if I left any room for ambiguity, let me correct it now: the average person working in this area is competent, polite, and self-controlled.  And they provide a vital function to this project under what are sometimes among the most exhausting situations Wikipedia can throw at a volunteer.  {{pb}}Frankly, JoJo, I was working the anti-fringe beat long before you joined the project, so I don't need to be told by you that I am somehow showing "bad faith" simply because I happen to point to a longstanding issue in that area, and acknowledge a very real personality type that is a liability to the work.  And bluntly speaking, anybody who works at those tasks and hasn't noticed problematic editors of this sort has some serious blinders on, given they are frequent fixtures of ArbCom cases and both AE and ANI reports. {{pb}}Look, let me put it to you this way: on a disturbingly high number of occasions, I have ecnountered editors pushing pro-child sex abuse ideologies.  I'm sure if nothing else, we can probably agree at least that this is about the worst and most unacceptable type of fringe that we can imagine someone trying to slip into our conent, right?  And if you knew me personally, you'd understand that there's not a type of person on the face of this planet who is more custom-tailored to get '''my''' blood boiling.  But I never resorted to bending the rules in my efforts to run these shit-heels and their nonsense off the project.  I kept cool and followed process.  Because the task at hand was more important than my ego, or the satisfaction I would get from loosing my anger on them.  {{pb}} Now if I can exercise self-control in ''those circumstances'', then other anti-fringe advocates can sure as hell keep their crap together while talking to Avatar adherents, or cupping advocates, or flat-earthers, or the people here to blow the lid on the lizard people, the little grey men, the Illuminati, Area 51, earthquake machines, and the microchips Bill Gates put in our vaccines. One can and should deal with any kind of purveyor of snake-oil, psuedoscience, conspiracy theory, historical revisionism, and woo without losing their shit, giving the nutters more grist for the mill, and making the containment work harder for the rest of us. {{pb}}And I refuse to take it seriously when you claim that I am showing "bad faith" because I recognize that a certain subset of our fellow contributors in this area are more a liability than a help to the work.  I'm sorry, but if you think that isn't so, you are just. plain. wrong. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 10:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' . Per [[User:FOARP]], Bloodofox recently touched a content "third rail", which IMO has amplified and somewhat distorted perceptions of their long term behavior. It is true that Bloodofox has periodically (once a year? twice a year?) reached his limit of patience and reacted poorly with acerbic and condescending comments. This has led some to see CBAN as the only solution, but I don't agree the uncivil conduct is extreme and unrelenting enough to warrant expulsion from the project. I do support a formal warning per [[User: Levivich]] with ascending blocks if clear policy violations are repeated. [[User:LuckyLouie|&#45; LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 13:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Maybe LuckyLouie is right, and this warning will embolden admins to apply the necessary escalating blocks on future. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 13:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Basically because this is our chance to tell BOO that this behaviour isn't cool regardless of where it is done. Please AGF in future or you'll be back here and it won't be pretty. And ghosting us like this is not impressive either. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' The back and forth on the ''Braucherei'' talk page was the first time I remember ever having a conversation with :bloodofox:. For that stuff and all the other stuff I've read about here, it is my sincere hope that it will be enough. I'm not going to get my hopes up too high, though, because something seems to happen to us long-term types. In recent times I've seen several really good long-term editors get indeffed, and some were my friends and mentors. Eerie stuff, IMHO. Maybe :bloodofox: deserves harsher treatment, and maybe they'll get harsher outcomes if they try hard enough. It is my sincere hope that the subject of all this will come around and start treating other volunteer editors with '''''[[WP:5P4|Pillar Four courtesy]] from this moment on'''''. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>15:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)</small>
*'''support''': something is better than nothing. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 17:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*Just a note to say this overall thread has been open for two weeks now, with exactly one new participant in the last five days. Personal take aside, if it were about me I wouldn't want an open thread like this hanging over me for longer than it had to. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Listed at [[WP:CR]] [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 19:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as I am opposed to warnings for experienced editors. A long-ass ANI thread threatening multiple blocks of various lengths is “warning” enough. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 07:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

==Ohconfucius Changing English variants without consensus==
This was filed at [[WP:DRN|the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]], but it isn't an article content dispute, and it appears to be a chronic intractable behavioral issue.  [[User:Ohconfucius]] apparently has a script which is changing the English variety templates to {{tl|EngvarB}} without consensus.  A banner containing instructions for the template {{tl|EngvarB}} state that:  {{tq|An article tagged with one of the more-specific English-dialect templates should not be changed to EngvarB unless a talk-page discussion concludes with consensus to do so.}}. 
 
Editors were complaining to [[User:Ohconfucius]] at least since 2 June 2025 and have been ignored, both with templates and with talk page text.  Two examples of the inappropriate edits were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lake_George_%28Uganda%29&diff=1293644654&oldid=1270416679] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Jacomb-Hood&diff=1294636167&oldid=1294540514]. 
 
It now appears that administrator [[User:MSGJ|Martin]] has blocked OhConfucius from mainspace.  I think that this was a necessary block but should be discussed here.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:Please also note that this editor is the maintainer of a script that applies ENGVAR changes, and [[User_talk:Ohconfucius/EngvarB#"The_script_must_never_be_used_on_an_article_which_is_already_tagged_for_a_national_variety_of_English."|has been unresponsive to concerns that the script makes inappropriate changes]]. I do not have a way of knowing if this script is being used by other editors to make these inappropriate changes, possibly without those editors' knowledge that the script does so. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 16:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Ohconfucius]] wrote, on their talk page, after the block:  {{tq|Please advise how I'm supposed to act on this information, seeing that I've been pre-emptively blocked in a rather high-handed fashion}} .  I don't think that the block was pre-emptive so much as preventive, and I don't think that it was high-handed, after other editors have been trying to discuss the script-based template changes for <ins> more than</ins> two weeks without any response other than a continuation of the improper edits.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Please see the User talk page link above. It has been over seven months, not just two weeks. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I have raised concerns with Ohconfucius regarding their script making errors, on 11 June and 18 June; their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOhconfucius&diff=1295132212&oldid=1295126532 response] was essentially "I cannot be bothered to correct the script". I suggest a topic ban. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I've been on line for 6 hours without substantial editing, just doing some much-needed tidying up work, so I fail to see how one can say that the block was not pre-emptive or preventative. Anyway, I'll respond more fully later. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 18:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::::...we are, in fact, very much saying the block was preventative, and the evidence provided so far makes it very clear that yes, it's preventative. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 19:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Agree it was a good block. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:Unfortunately moving this here was bound to result in escalation.  There is a real issue that needs resolving, and I understand how frustrating it is for all concerned.  The issue is a little more sensitive than it appears, and a little more complex than it appears.  Achieving the optimal outcome might yet be possible but I think it would have been better left at the DR page.   All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 14:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC).</small><br />
::This is a real issue that needs resolving. Bringing it here was escalation because repeated requests with varying degrees of courtesy had been ignored. After Ohconfucius had repeatedly ignored concerns that his script was removing the national language templates, why should I or other editors have expected that he would respond to an invitation to come to [[WP:DRN|DRN]]?      [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 01:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm no expert about all this, but the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 27#Template:EngvarB]] strongly suggests that there's an ongoing issue with our language templates and that a solution could be found. It would need some hammering out, sure, but it also wouldn't necessitate a ban. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 02:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for pointing out that open [[WP:TFD|TFD]].  I think that deprecating the {{tl|EngvarB}} template is a good idea, but I don't think that would avoid the need for sanctions against an editor who both continues to advocate for the template and has shown disregard for consensus.  It appears that Ohconfucius doesn't know what their own script does.  They say that the template is purely a maintenance template that indicates that an article has been processed by the script.  They don't say that the script removes {{tl|Use Ugandan English}} and {{tl|Use British English}}; but it does remove the Use National English templates.  That TFD discussion shows that the script's maintainer is not part of the solution and is therefore part of the problem.  It also shows that we cannot rely on the script's maintainer to describe what the script actually does.  Maybe the script is a rogue script.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::This can be resolved by fixing the script All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 14:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC).</small><br />
::::Yes.  It should not have taken weeks or months for editors to ask that the script be fixed.  Some of us no longer trust Ohconfucius to maintain scripts, after he continued to use scripts with reported bugs for an extended period of time.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
::::The EngvarB script should only be used on English variants it supports. For example, [[New Zealand English#American English influences]] describes aspects of that variety which need custom support. Ohconfucius [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohconfucius#c-Ohconfucius-20250611222800-GiantSnowman-20250611175600 previously stated] he would not do this, however, while of course there is no obligation for Ohconfucius to add support for all English variants, the script should not be used on English variants it does not support. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 01:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
:That TfD [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_27#Template:EngvarB|was recently closed as "deprecate"]].—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 05:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a side point (given that ANI is supposed to be about behavior), but it is important nonetheless, both in and of itself, and with regard to the the claims made in this ANI report. The alleged deprecatation of {{tlx|EngvarB}} either needs to be rescinded by its closer, {{U|Beland}}, or taken to [[WP:AN]] for administrative review and reclosure. Those !voting for deprecation were a small minority, and most of their responses are either devoid of a real rationale or has one that is mistaken or irrelevant (e.g. objecting to the name, which is a [[WP:RM]] matter, not objecting to the purpose or functionality of the template). The actual and defensible rationales in support of the template (e.g. "This is not as simple as people would like. How am I to tag Australia-New Zealand relations without {{tnull|EngvarB}}?" were never addressed by any of those in favor of deprecation. Specifically:
* The closer's suggestion to "revive or create templates like {{tlx|Use Commonwealth English}} or {{tlx|Use International English}}" makes no sense, since the former was deleted by consensus, the latter redirects to {{tnull|EngvarB}}, and taking this route would simply re-create {{tnull|EngvarB}} under a different name. The closer appears to have completely confused deprecation rationales with renaming rationales – and simultaneously accepted rationales to get rid of the template {{em|and}} accepted rationales for keeping it reified as rationales to re-create the template at a new name.
* The closer's alternative idea, "pick whichever specific dialect came first in the article history" ignores the entire purpose of such a template, which is to avoid conflicts of this sort by agreeing on a dialect/spelling label and system that doesn't pick a side (other than not North American) where the dialects in question (here, New Zealander and Australian English) don't have a difference that will affect the article text. It also ignores that [[MOS:ENGVAR]] (like the other [[MOS:VAR]] provisions) have us resort to "default to the version that first appeared in the article" {{em|only when all else fails}}; we should always use the variant that makes the most sense for the context, not throw up our hands and revert to first-out-of-the-gate if we can avoid it. In cases like this, neither specific dialect would be objectively better; the only objectively better result would be "non-North-American", i.e. Commonwealth English in general, i.e. EngvarB. * As if to drive the closer's confusion home, their third option, "create orthography-oriented templates like {{tlx|Use Oxford spelling}} but for different spelling styles that span countries" again amounts to "re-create EngvarB under another name". The exact nature of EngvarB is that it is the country-spanning spelling template that corresponds to what British, Irish, Australian, NZ, Indian, South African, etc. (Commonwealth or international English) spelling has in common across national dialects versus American (often very different) and Canadian (a blend of American and Commonwealth spelling).
In summary, the close simply does not make any sense, in any part of it. And a close that basically resolves to "there isn't a clear results, but at least different ones" is pretty much by definition a "no consensus". But I would think that a real actual consensus was reached that the template needs a clearer name. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 00:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:Stanton absolutely nailed it. There is no substantial disagreement on the principle of 4 major English variants, so, this entire issue is not even about spelling, but about which clucking template ought to prevail. My script does its job, and the faux consensus to deprecate {{tl|EngvarB}} is proverbial bathwater stuff – thanks for pointing out the sheer nonsense. Had it closed as "delete" – probably only because nobody thought to nominate it for deletion – the assembled editors on WP would presumably then split into warring factions to fight over how to carve up the spoils. In failing to acknowledge/recognise the problem, the close was a fudge which failed to reconcile the differing objectives that may exist. 
:I'm not at all interested in the petty issue of which template to adorn any given article, There's much work to do, even semi-automatically, my endgame has always been to get on with improving WP. Scripting improvement and editing drive each other, so it's frustrating to do it with one arm tied behind my back. The problem needs a holistic solution, and I think the goodwill exists. I would thank [[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] for his proposal of a workshop; together we will prevail. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 13:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ohconfucius ===
First off, just a simple "him" will do when referring to me. My work on WP has occasionally proven frustrating, especially when there seems [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_27&diff=prev&oldid=1293575428 not to be any coherent approach] to achieving end goal, or maybe a mutual misunderstanding of what that goal should be. I don't think the uniformity of spelling itself is a problematic issue, because our MOS permits articles to be in one code or another (but not a mix), it's a question of whether to overwrite a language template, to update it, or leave it alone, which has troubled me for a while. I'm not saying that what I sought to do in the past over dates is vindicated – there were indeed some problems with my approach – but there became realisation that work to unify date formats within articles is so fastidious and had to be done by automated or semi-automated means. The dates script has been stable for years now. And although the spelling issue is very similar, there are unresolved issues. However, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2025_May_27&diff=1295223987&oldid=1295100568 there are signs] that we may be getting there.

As would seem obvious from my most recent edits, articles are out categories where [[W:TIES]] would seem to imply a British Commonwealth spelling while where {{tl|Use British English}} would clearly be inappropriate. Many articles from those categories bearing the template were skipped; or when they were edited, templates were merely updated manually (and not overwritten), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Virgin_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=1296206893 such as this one] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosamund_Pike&diff=prev&oldid=1296120121 this one], and some were regrettably missed, as has been pointed out. 

As a solution out of this conflict, I undertake not to remove or replace any language tags in articles. I will update the script for whatever coherent solution as and when it is reached. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 10:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for that undertaking. Would you be prepared to go further and to voluntarily subject yourself to proposal 1 currently being discussed below? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
::I think it is far too pervasive. It'll be like an itch that I can't scratch – most editors will understand how painful that is. Likely to be the case if I come across misspelt word, for example, any one of the articles I had a [[User:Ohconfucius/Contributions|significant input into]] or which pops up on my watchlist, or whatever I happen to come across when looking up stuff. As its worded, it also effectively stops me from maintaining the script effectively (including testing). A reminder that the issue is my removal or replacement of language tags, and that my script isn't well maintained. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 11:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone would have a problem with you correcting the occasional spelling mistake, on a manual basis. What they are bothered by are your bot-like script-assisted mass editing. Would you be able to lay off the scripts and other assisted tools in this regard? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Put that way, I could live with it. Hows about an expiry date, though? <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 11:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Ohconfucius]] - I thank you for your late reply, and have a question.  Why did you ignore repeated statements of concern about your script until you were blocked? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 01:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, this is a good question which I think should be answered ... &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 16:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Ohconfucius}} you have been online since this question was asked - an answer would be appreciated. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::I guess when you work on something for a long time – in this case developing and maintaining scripts, you get wound up in it watching the mechanics and how the code works, all the while looking not just for the changes it makes, mindful of the false positives and false negatives and constantly thinking about modifications to the code to make it better. It can be mesmerising and feeds my nerd side. It's a bit like watching the second hand of a clock go around, and so it's easy to lose sight of the world around us. That’s why this process has been a good experience for me, learning not just about writing code/regexes, also the limitations of manually building worklist using just categories, as well understanding those other opinions and self-reflecting. So, my bad... <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 08:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Are you going to fix the script so that it conforms with the template documentation? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::::What needs to change with the script, in your opinion? Is it an issue for anyone using the script, or was it just the way that Ohconfucius was using it? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::The script appears to allow [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basil_Rajapaksa&diff=1293263150&oldid=1292230025 replacement of a valid Use X English template with EngvarB], which is contrary to the template's documentation and the script's documentation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamaat_al_Muslimeen_coup_attempt&diff=1293195078&oldid=1289394662 Here's another example]. And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karen_Elson&diff=prev&oldid=1240244749 here's one from August 2024]; the script owner never responded to the report. The script's owner still has not responded in those threads, so I do not have a way of knowing whether that change was the fault of the script or of the editor. The [[User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js|EngvarB script]] is also not linked in the default edit summary for these edits, but it appears that the EngvarB script is being used. That is confusing at the least, misleading at worst. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Maybe I don't understand the answer by Ohconfucius to why he ignored at least two weeks of complaints that the script was removing the nation-specific templates and replacing them with the EngvarB template.  Or maybe I understand all too well.  Maybe he is saying that working on scripts is fun.  Yes.  I know.  Maybe he is saying that responding to messages from humans about the scripts is boring.  Maybe it is, but this encyclopedia is a collaborative project, a large electronic workplace.  Interaction with humans is even more important than interaction with the servers.  He had to be blocked from article space before he responded.  I am not persuaded that [[User:Ohconfucius]] can be trusted to run scripts against the encyclopedia when he continued to ignore concerns about his scripts.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 01:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Please refer to my statement above where I explained what I was doing, and how I was working. With the script being in need of reconfiguration, my approach was to to select articles where there would be ''à priori'' reduced riek of coming across templates that I ought not to touch. You are continuing to accuse me of [[WP:AGF|bad faith]], which I find a tad disturbing bearing in mind your supposed neutrality – unless you don't intend on closing this thread about me. I already demonstrated examples of how I manually changed some of those that I came across instead of removing them. In all, what I missed were literally a small handful – maybe 4 or 5 out of the 400 or so edits made with the script over a period of several days. The error rate is non-zero, but in not a catastrophe in view of the fact that my edits were being closely scrutinised. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 13:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::This reply is very concerning. Ohconfucius replaced a valid Use X English template with EngvarB in hundreds of articles over a period of at least seven months, even after being notified that such edits were invalid. And just today, in the section above, he said {{tq|My script does its job}}, which appears to be false, based on the diffs that I have provided (hundreds more are available). – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just for the record, the answer by Ohconfucius is very unsatisfactory. It shows no indication that if a similar problem is occurring in future, it will be resolved. It does not, in fact, answer the question.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 06:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:For the record, I remain vehemently opposed to the continued existence of various templates for minor English variants, and to apposing {{tl|Use British English}} in articles that cannot be fairly and accurately represented as having "British national ties". However, what the community wants, the community gets: [[User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js|The script]] has had its templating function modified. Just don't anybody go adding any more, because the script will treat them as "[[foreign bodies]]". Now can we get back to work? <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 15:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::It doesn't matter whether you are "vehemently opposed" to things or not - you need to abide by community consensus. There's plenty of things on Wikipedia I don't like but do anyway. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 10:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

=== Topic ban proposals ===
GiantSnowman suggests a topic ban.  I have looked over much of the history, and have two in mind that will largely but not entirely overlap.  [[User:Ohconfucius]] is an editor whose automated and semi-automated edits have been contentious for at least sixteen years.  I think that both are in order, but either of them will address the current disruptive edits, and so either of them, in my opinion, should be sufficient to unblock from article space in general.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

====Proposal 1:  Topic-Ban from English Variants====
I propose that Ohconfucius be topic-banned from all edits involving English variants, including but not limited to adding, removing, or removing templates, <ins>or</ins> editing the templates <del>, or changes in spelling</del>.
*'''Support''' as proposer.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This editor has been given many good-faith chances to change their behavior and change their script. They have not done so and only rarely engage with the constructive feedback provided to them. I request that their EngvarB script be disabled so that others can't use it to make edits that go against [[MOS:RETAIN]] and against the documentation at {{tl|EngvarB}}. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 00:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for now, given the disruption/errors and their refusal to sop or listen. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 07:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for a limited duration. OhConfucius describes this as being {{tq|like an itch they cannot scratch}} but, unfortunately, their need to scratch this itch seems to have become disruptive. Being asked to step back from this for a little while and get some distance with the force of the community behind them should help OhC to get some context on the urgency of the issue and some distance. However I don't think this should be indefinite. It's clear they also have done some good work in this area and maybe what's really needed is just a breather. As such I think a limited duration topic ban in the realm of 3 months might be appropriate. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' refusal to stop carrying out edits that many people have objected too shows a disregard for consensus and that a topic ban is necessary to prevent further disruption. [[Special:Contributions/206.83.102.217|206.83.102.217]] ([[User talk:206.83.102.217|talk]]) 22:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
**Banned from manually correcting/harmonising spelling? Why?[[User:Tony1|<b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen">(talk)</span>]] 08:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
**:I agree with Tony. A ban from correcting spelling seems like overkill, and it's not really addressing the problem. A better solution would be a ban from removing or replacing language tags, and an undertaking not to use the EngvarB script on English variants it does not support (most of them, apparently). [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 08:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The editor in question has not demonstrated problematic behavior across the entire span of "English variants", e.g. in normalising dialectal spelling within an article, in fixing an article about Ireland incorrectly given {{tlx|Use British English}}, in engaging in talk-page discussion about English dialects/varieties, etc. The sole problem has been use of a particular templating script, so it is sufficient to restrain use of that script for now until consensus about these dialect templates is hammered out. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 23:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I have struck "changes in spelling", in response to questions, because it is easier to strike it than to qualify it, and I understand that other editors disagree with me.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' We need to work with our colleagues in a constructive way to produce beneficial outcomes.  See my proposal below.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 09:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC).</small><br />
*'''Oppose''' As I said below there is no reason to issue Ohconfucius a topic ban as they are a net positive to the community. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:30% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Gommeh|🎮]]</span> 15:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' EngVarB is deprecated, so there isn't a point to changing anything to it. [[User:PerryPerson|PerryPerson]] ([[User talk:PerryPerson|talk]]) 05:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
====Proposal 2:  Topic-Ban from Scripts====
I propose that Ohconfucius be topic-banned from all edits using <del>scripts</del> <ins>either user-written scripts or Automated Wiki Browser (AWB).</ins>
*'''Support''' as proposer.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Strong recommendation to modify this proposal, as scripts are ubiquitous in editing Wikipedia (e.g., Twinkle). Modify to say all edits using scripts on subpages of Ohconfucius. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 00:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*::Tweaked.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 01:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::Thank you. Looks good. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 01:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Ohconfucius's scripts are useful - I use their MOS:NUM one daily - and I see no recent disruption/issues with other scripts, so think the topic ban should be limited to language variants for now. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 07:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''—per Giant Snowman. [[User:Tony1|<b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen">(talk)</span>]] 02:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
*:So Snowman's full real name is Giovanni Snowman? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 00:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
*::Giovanni T. Snowman III, to you... [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 08:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::Edwin Engelbarth, Esquire, to you... [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', Ohconfucious does a legitimate lot of good work in the script space, and it would be a net negative to ban them from this space. [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(0.3deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 20:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater yet again. The editor in question has not demonstrated a problematic behavior pattern across WP scripting in general. Concerns have only been raised about a particular script, and it's not even the script {{lang|la|per se}} that is the locus of controversy, but rather the dialect-related template the script uses. This is really a template dispute not a scripting one, and it's as much a template dispute as a behavioral one. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 23:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The user has not given a satisfactory explanation for his failure to respond to messages advising him his script was malfunctioning. The user failed to fix the script despite knowing it was malfunctioning. This, for me, is a very strong reason for a preventative ban, given the likelihood of a script malfunctioning in future.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 06:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose.'''  Far too broad ranging.  Lets instead work cop-operatively to help Ohconfucius to help us.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 09:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC).</small><br />
*'''Oppose'''. We have absolutely no good reason to issue a topic ban in this scenario. Ohconfucius is a very constructive editor who, at worst, made a mistake. I'd be opposed to any other community sanctions. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:30% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Gommeh|🎮]]</span> 15:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

====Proposal 3: Temporary ban from Engvar while a solution is workshopped==== 
As I discussed above, the important thing is to get a solution to the issue.  The underlying dispute is not of incredible importance, but it would be nice to get it right.  In certain cases we have made the "wrong choice" in minor matters, but the loss has been less than if we had made no choice and the conflict had continues.  In some of those consensus has later changed to the "right choice".  (I suspect the revese may have happened too.)  

Lets not get stuck in AN/I land, but instead move forward to the bright sunnier uplands… (etc. etc.)

I'll post a link to a workshop page once I've created it.

All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 08:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC).</small><br />
:[[Wikipedia:Engvar_workshop]]  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 09:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC).</small>
::Thanks for your efforts Rich, it is appreciated. But why make up facts? [[Template:Use Antarctic English]] was never a thing! &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC) <br />
:::Corrected.  It was the talk page template [[Template:Antarctic English]] that was deleted.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 09:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC).</small><br />
*'''Oppose''' - far too narrow - too little, too late. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - There are at least two problems.  There are technical questions which in turn appears to have at least two parts.  The first part is whether there should be an {{tl|EngvarB}} template.  The second part is questions about the {{tl|Use Fooian English}} templates.  The workshop appears to be intended to try to resolve the technical issue.  I think that I disagree with the proposed solution in the workshop, but that is less important.  There is also a conduct issue, which is that Ohconfucius was failing to discuss a script that was imposing technical changes that were contrary to consensus and were setting back the improvement of the encyclopedia.  We are here at [[WP:ANI]] because of the conduct issue, which involved pushing through technical changes against consensus and failing to discuss.  The conduct has been interfering with any attempt to reach technical consensus, and this proposal appears to be to ignore the conduct so as to solve the technical problem.  But the conduct is interfering with a technical solution.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

====Move to closure====
Can an uninvolved admin review this discussion and make a decision? I'd suggest there's small consensus in favour of Proposal 1, and clear consensus against 2 and 3. Either way, it does nobody any favours having the discussion open indefinitely. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

===What baby?  What bathwater?===
I have a few questions and comments, mainly for those opposing sanctions.  One editor opposes both of my sanction proposals as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  My question there is what benefit to Wikipedia (the baby) would be harmed by imposing these sanctions.  What we saw is that a script that was written by Ohconfucius and run by Ohconfucius was changing valid country-specific English variant tags to the deprecated EngvarB tag, and that Ohconfucius was ignoring repeated posts, both templates and text, to his talk page.  One editor opposes a topic ban because Ohconfucius is a net positive to the encyclopedia.  Yes but.  Topic bans are imposed on editors who are net positives to the encyclopedia but are net negatives within a specific area that they must be told to avoid.  Editors who are net negatives to the encyclopedia should be site-banned, and that is not the issue here.   One editor says:  {{tq| Ohconfucius is a very constructive editor who, at worst, made a mistake.}}  In my opinion, he made two mistakes, one minor, and one major, and he hasn't explained the major mistake.  The minor mistake is that his script removed valid tags, which it was not supposed to do.  The major mistake was ignoring talk page messages for an extended period.  I know that writing scripts and using scripts is fun, and communicating with humans is work, but Wikipedia is an electronic workplace, and communicating with other humans is not optional.  It may be that there is a viewpoint that script maintainers are '''''special''''' and not required to communicate.  

I see an editor who has not recently shown that he is collaborating with the community.  I had more comments than questions.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that we need some form of sanction, given Ohc's continued attitude here. I have little faith disruption will stop unless we act. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 10:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, you do indeed need to establish the likelihood of further disruption. Given that the script has been modified so that the previously objectionable changes no longer get made, what sort of sanction do you think might be appropriate in your view? And would this be prevention or [[WP:PUNISH|punishment]]? <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 21:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Wait, sorry, are you now saying that after the last... 7 months and apparently hundreds of edits, you could, at any time, have fixed the script within the space of an hour or two? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 21:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::As I have said above - Ohc's continued attitude means I have zero confidence disruption will not continue. All we have needed is a "sorry guys" but instead we've had a doubling down and a sense of superiority. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

==Disruptive misuse of CSD G5 by KhndzorUtogh==
{{userlinks|KhndzorUtogh}}{{pb}} 
I'm reporting [[User:KhndzorUtogh]] for misusing CSD G5 to tag my article [[Enver Pasha's campaign in Bukhara (1922)]] for speedy deletion, claiming it violated general sanctions on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics.

1. The article **does not relate to the Armenian Genocide**, nor to the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute.
2. It covers **a military campaign in Central Asia (1922)** by Enver Pasha during the Basmachi movement.
3. I am **not banned or blocked**, and the article has **no connection to any topic currently under GS enforcement**.
4. After tagging it with G5, the user **deleted the article without waiting for AfD consensus**, and has continued to interfere with the content’s existence.

This appears to be either a **misunderstanding of policy** or **deliberate abuse** to suppress valid content. I've contested the deletion and posted on the talk page, but I would appreciate admin input before this escalates further.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Selim beg|Selim beg]] ([[User talk:Selim beg#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Selim beg|contribs]]) 16:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I thought about reporting Selim beg but it looks like they’ve made a report already so I’ll just comment here instead of making one. I warned and reverted user Selim beg recent edits almost all of them were about Enver pasha, the main perpetrator of the Armenian genocide, thus violating [[WP:GS/AA]]. My thinking is that it’s at the least a broadly construed [[WP:GS/AA]] violation since all of the edits I reverted involve Enver pasha battles when he’s the leader or the [[Basmachi movement|movement leader]] himself, and deletion requests like this are an explicit violation if anything [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hitler%27s_reference_to_the_Armenian_genocide&oldid=1296271643] (though it was blanked later by them). The user, despite my thorough additional explanation on their talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASelim_beg&diff=1296306171&oldid=1296302675], has reverted several edits and restored their version / articles without gaining extended confirmed, you can see it in their contributions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Selim_beg]. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 16:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::Enver Pasha was indeed the main pepetetrator of the Armenian genocide, but that doesn't make everything regarding Enver Pasha [[WP:GS/AA]] related, even under 'broadly construed'. [[Enver Pasha's campaign in Bukhara (1922)]], for instance, doesn't appear to have anything at all to do with the AA topic area. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 19:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I see. What about article/template of [[Basmachi Movement]]? I had nominated the template for speedy deletion, but I don’t have a problem withdrawing it. This revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bergmann_Offensive&diff=prev&oldid=1296369737 here] though I believe it is a violation. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 19:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::::You ''could'' stretch that one, since there were Armenian volunteers, but overall it's a World War I battle between the Ottoman Empire and Russia and the edit linked doesn't appear to affect the Armenian-related content. I'd [[WP:AGF]] on that one. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I thought it was a violation but wasn’t 100% sure so I didn’t revert it. I see that it can be a stretch and agree with assuming GF. FYI, the user now restored all their article versions and made a GS/AA violation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Turkish_War_(1877–1878)&diff=1296436902&oldid=1296435373 here]. I can’t assume GF on this one as it’s a blatant violation, especially after all the discussion here and on their talk. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 02:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::* The GS/AA '''sanctions''' are for modern political disputes, mostly post-1900, especially:
::::::** '''Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict'''
::::::** '''Nagorno-Karabakh'''
::::::** '''Genocide debates'''
::::::** '''Soviet/post-Soviet territorial issues etc.'''
::::::The 1877–78 war (aka the 93 war) is a 19th-century Ottoman–Russian conflict, and while Armenians participated, it's a historical military matter — not directly under GS/AA unless you make it political which i didn't and especially put an academic source supporting my claim. [[User:Selim beg|Selim beg]] ([[User talk:Selim beg|talk]]) 09:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I’m a bit concerned about the level of [[WP:CIR|incompetency]] here. Selim beg is actively reverting / editing in [[Enver Pasha]] ''main'' article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296493583], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296494791] while at the same time arguing it not being in the [[WP:GS/AA]] scope? It’s like editing Hitler’s article while simultaneously arguing it’s unrelated to the Holocaust. 
:::::::Additionally, they’ve restored their previous violation in a war article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%931878)&diff=prev&oldid=1296494968], where they added Armenian volunteers as belligerents and where Armenia is mentioned more than 30 times. And yet here they defend this too? I won’t revert you again, please revert yourself if you understand that these are general sanction violations, you may be sanctioned if you don’t self revert. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 10:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That is not how WP:GS/AA works. The mere presence of the word ''"Armenia"'' or the fact that an article mentions Armenian individuals does '''not''' automatically place it under General Sanctions. GS/AA applies specifically to modern political disputes — namely, the Armenian Genocide, the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict, Nagorno-Karabakh, and related nationalism-based content disputes.
::::::::My edits to the ''Enver Pasha'' article are limited to his '''ethnicity''' and '''military career in the Balkans''', not to any content related to the Armenian Genocide or the Azerbaijan–Armenia dispute. Therefore, GS/AA does not apply to those changes.
::::::::Likewise, my addition of '''Armenian volunteers in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78''' pertains to a '''19th-century imperial war''', and is:
::::::::* Historically accurate
::::::::* Widely documented by reliable sources
::::::::* Not presented with any modern political or nationalist framing
::::::::Comparing these edits to “editing Hitler while denying the Holocaust” is a gross mischaracterization and not remotely analogous. I have not edited anything relating to 1915, genocide claims, or nationalist narratives.
::::::::Unless you can show how these specific edits fall within the actual scope of GS/AA as defined by ArbCom, I see no reason to self-revert. [[User:Selim beg|Selim beg]] ([[User talk:Selim beg|talk]]) 10:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::If you insist, that’s fine, I won’t be the judge of that. The diffs are there for admins to look at, but I still advise you to reconsider and self revert for your own benefit. Also this sounds like an AI generated text and if it is, at least quote me accurately; I didn’t say anything about you denying the holocaust. The supposed validity of your edits has nothing to do with extended confirmed sanctions either. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 11:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Selim beg}}, you are wrong in your assessement of GS/AA. It is ''not'' limited to {{tqq|modern political disputes}}. GS/AA applies to {{tqq|Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed}}. Not there is nothing about "modern", and there is "broadly construed". The 1877-78 war, in which (as you note) Armenians participated, is, therefore, a "conflict involving Armenia" and thus ''explicitly'' covered by GS/AA. Now, reasonably, not everything ''about'' the war falls under GS/AA, but anything involving Armenians (or Azeris, if they were present) about the war ''is''. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:I think the belief that the G5-tagged articles were covered by GS/AA is a reasonable one, so I don't think any admin action against KU is warranted here. GS/AA is not limited to ''modern'' conflicts, so SB is wrong about that part and should consider some self-reversion. The gross misquoting of KU ("denying the Holocaust") is a serious issue, and it should stricken ASAP. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] @[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]]  It doesn’t look like Selim beg is going to self revert because they have been active since the comments here, and yet they made more edits in Enver pasha main article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296774438], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296774488], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296774567]. I personally would’ve liked them to self revert, but it increasingly appears they’re not going to do so. I reverted them in both articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Turkish_War_(1877–1878)&diff=prev&oldid=1296777657], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296777714], and left another message on their talk [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Selim_beg&diff=prev&oldid=1296778094]. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 06:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
: {{u|Selim beg}}, would you please disclose the extent to which you have used a [[WP:LLM|large language model (LLM)]], such as an [[AI chatbot]] or other tool, to author your article edits such as [[Special:Diff/1296570440]] and your comments such as [[Special:Diff/1296371439|the first one in this discussion]]? —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 14:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::i write the paraghraps myself in turkish and ask ai to translate it for me [[User:Selim beg|Selim beg]] ([[User talk:Selim beg|talk]]) 16:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Selim beg}}, what are you using to translate your Turkish text? There is a distinction between using [[machine translation]] services such as [[Google Translate]], which may use [[WP:LLM|LLMs]] in their technical implementation but still aim to create a faithful translation of your text in the target language, and [[AI chatbot]]s such as [[ChatGPT]], which generate all kinds of outputs including ones that are not translations of your text. The use of machine translation services is acceptable in some cases when not done [[WP:DE|disruptively]], but the use of AI chatbots is often problematic for the reasons listed at [[WP:LLM]]. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 16:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{u|Selim beg}}, can you please respond to the above? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 19:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:I think a temporary block might be necessary here. SB has continued to edit without responding to concerns here. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1297501214 this request for page protection], they inappropriately referred to good-faith contributions from experienced editors as "vandalism". I'm not sure they are able to edit collaboratively in areas that are even adjacent to AA. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 13:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

===Proposal: pblock for Selim beg===

I propose that Selim Beg be blocked from article space until they can show that they have overcome their case of ANIflu. [[User:Insanityclown1|Insanityclown1]] ([[User talk:Insanityclown1|talk]]) 10:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
* Support: serious case of ANI flu. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 11:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
**Pblock from articlespace imposed until [[WP:COMMUNICATE|communication improves]]. Anyone can lift it once it does. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet ==

{{userlinks|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet}}

I've just sent three recently created articles to AfD of pretty much the same thing of Police stations! 
* [[:Tongi East Thana]]
* [[:Gacha Thana]]
* [[:Bason Thana]]
by the time I saw the forth one ([[:Pubail Thana]]) in the new page queue, I feel this is a problem and it's down to the user who I had a look at and the history on his talk page shows a serious issue of creating content which is more or less mostly deleted and appears to be a continuing issue. Can we block this user from creating any more articles? [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 16:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Woah calm down there, first of all, just because i have a few flaws does not mean i should not create any more pages, please first make the user understand through your research, i have tried to do the best for Wikipedia from November 2023, and i have stopped vandalism and created pages about important topics, fixed formats, fixed issues and other things, and second, many users have faced 5 or 10 or even more AfDs over time, that is not a reason for blocking such a contributor. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 16:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
:Thats like being a teacher and the student trying but having issues and deciding to expel the student forever, thats not gonna fix the issue, in fact it will only backfire, what is supposed to be done is to teach the student now what issue have i done here, plus those thanas arent just police stations and yes, thanas are police stations but there are some differences, urban thanas (you can find details at the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics) and rural thanas have a few differences, rural thanas' administrative value has shifted to upazilas while there may not be upazilas in many urban areas and then urban thanas have some administrative value and serve both purposes, for law and administration. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 16:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
::Wikipedia is not meant to be directory on what's where. You have created a lot of articles, that have been deleted. There does seem to be a problem here and you're still creating issues and work load for others which is very irksome. ''Significant coverage'' is a pretty evident our the policy which is something I feel you have failed to do. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 16:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Sure, thats your opinion, its not like i am sitting around and doing nothing, I know it is not a directory, i myself use that argument but i try to add relevant information, i am not creating articles on homes of each person or numbers or simple unimportant topics, if i ever increased the workload on someone, i am sorry but that is the reality of the platform, everyone increases workload even if it is not their intention, not just me, but everyone including you, me, and others on the platform and about significant coverage, i try my best to make the pages pass SIGCOV, but these methods of just preventing a new contributor with good intentions and immense contributions from ever doing anything again for a few flaws that may occur for everyone is like finding one moldy bread in your house, and then threatening to shut down the company forever. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 16:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Ok, My response: If the real issue is lack of sourcing, then deletion or escalation to ANI doesn’t seem like the right first step. A tag, a talk page message, or a cleanup request would’ve worked just as well — that’s what collaboration is for.  
::: 
:::And regarding “creating workload”: I get it. Cleanup and nominations, being careless about other countries but still trying to determine administrative legitimacy takes effort. But so does mass-nominating articles, launching ANI threads, and blasting other contributors' phones with notifications. Let’s be real — we all create some workload. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 17:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Govvy}}, do you read Bengali? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
::Nope, I use this invention called Google translator know! :/ [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 19:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Neither do I, but, Bengali being a widely understood language in English-speaking countries, I'm sure that we have plenty of editors who can do a better job than Google at understanding the sources. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a content issue, not a block-worthy ANI issue. I suggest taking this to user and/or article talk pages to work out your concerns. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]]  •  [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 04:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

===Determining the scope of the problem===
{{collapse top|title=Articles created by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+ Articles created by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet
! no.
! created
! article
! fate
|-
| 1 || 2024-04-13 || [[Md Mizanur Rahman Mizan]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 2 || 2024-04-14 || [[1958 East Pakistan-India border clash]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 3 || 2024-04-15 || [[2005 Bangladesh-India border clash]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 4 || 2024-04-29 || [[2019 Bangladesh-Indian border clash]] || {{no|Redirect}}
|-
| 5 || 2024-04-30 || [[Battles of Belonia Bulge]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 6 || 2024-05-10 || [[2014 Bangladesh-Myanmar border skirmish]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 7 || 2024-05-13 || [[Akbar Bahini]] ||
|-
| 8 || 2024-07-06 || [[Bangladesh International School & College (Nirjhor)]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 9 || 2024-07-07 || [[Nirjhor Cantonment Public School and College]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 10 || 2024-07-08 || [[Latif Bahini]] ||
|-
| 11 || 2024-07-14 || [[Gafur Bahini]] || {{no2|Merge}}
|-
| 12 || 2024-07-24 || [[Aftab Bahini]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 13 || 2024-07-24 || [[Halim Bahini]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 14 || 2024-07-24 || [[Kuddus Bahini]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 15 || 2024-07-24 || [[Shahjahan Bahini]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 16 || 2024-07-25 || [[Sylhet Cantonment]] ||
|-
| 17 || 2024-07-25 || [[Sylhet Cantonment Public School and College]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 18 || 2024-07-26 || [[Gafur Bahini]] || {{no2|Merge}}
|-
| 19 || 2024-07-28 || [[Khalil Bahini]] ||
|-
| 20 || 2024-07-29 || [[Abul Hossain Bahini]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 21 || 2024-07-30 || [[Bainnachola-Manikpur High School]] ||
|-
| 22 || 2024-08-01 || [[Postogola Cantonment]] ||
|-
| 23 || 2024-08-01 || [[Mirpur Cantonment Public School and College]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 24 || 2024-08-01 || [[Ramu Cantonment Public School and College]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 25 || 2024-08-01 || [[Ramu Cantonment English School and College]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 26 || 2024-08-02 || [[Jalalabad Cantonment English School And College]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 27 || 2024-08-06 || [[Lalmonirhat Cantonment]] ||
|-
| 28 || 2024-08-07 || [[Lalmonirhat Cantonment Public School And College]] || {{no|Redirect}}
|-
| 29 || 2024-08-16 || [[Desh Rupantor]] ||
|-
| 30 || 2024-08-16 || [[Paharer Alo]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 31 || 2024-08-16 || [[Riverview Cantonment Board School]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 32 || 2024-08-17 ||[[Dainik Khagrachari]] ||  {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 33 || 2024-08-17 || [[Parbatta News]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 34 || 2024-08-17 || [[Daily Rangamati]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 35 || 2024-08-21 || [[The Daily Karatoa]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 36 || 2024-08-21 || [[The Daily Ajker Jamalpur]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 37 || 2024-08-23 || [[Mohammadpur A. Gafur Government Primary School]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 38 || 2024-08-23 || [[Sohopathi]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 39 || 2024-08-25 || [[Rajshahi Cantonment Public School and College]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 40 || 2024-08-25 || [[Daily Jalalabad]] || {{yes|Keep}}
|-
| 41 || 2024-09-03 || [[Mustafa Mamun]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 42 || 2024-09-05 || [[Dainik Shiksha]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 43 || 2024-09-06 || [[Qadirabad Cantonment Public School]] ||
|-
| 44 || 2024-09-15 || [[1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes]] || {{no2|Merge}}
|-
| 45 || 2024-09-15 || [[Khagrachhari Cantonment Public School & College]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 46 || 2024-09-21 || [[Guimara Cantonment]] ||
|-
| 47 || 2024-09-21 || [[Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Ulama Dal]] ||
|-
| 48 || 2024-09-28 ||[[Bangladesh Popular Party]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 49 || 2024-10-03 ||[[Mawa Cantonment]] || {{no|Redirect}}
|-
| 50 || 2024-10-05 ||[[Mujahid Bahini (East Pakistan)]] ||
|-
| 51 || 2024-10-11 || [[24th Artillery Brigade (Bangladesh)]] ||
|-
| 52 || 2024-10-11 || [[Rajendrapur Cantonment Public School and College]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 53 || 2025-01-20 || [[East Pakistan Civil Armed Force]] ||
|-
| 54 || 2025-02-09 || [[Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Matsyajeebi Dal]] ||
|-
| 55 || 2025-02-09 || [[Weekly Sonar Bangla]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 56 || 2025-02-10 || [[Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Tati Dal]] ||
|-
| 57 || 2025-02-11 || [[Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Muktijoddha Dal]] ||
|-
| 58 || 2025-02-15 || [[Bangladesh Islami Chhatri Sangstha]] ||
|-
| 59 || 2025-02-21 || [[Bangladesh Jubo Mohila League]] ||
|-
| 60 || 2025-02-22 || [[Jatiyo Chhatra Samaj]] ||
|-
| 61 || 2025-02-26 || [[Jatiyo Jubo Sanghoti]] ||
|-
| 62 || 2025-02-27 || [[Jatiyo Sechhasebak Party]] ||
|-
| 63 || 2025-02-27 || [[Bangladesh Ganatantrik Chhatra Sangsad]] ||
|-
| 64 || 2025-02-28 || [[Bangladesh Awami Matsyajeebi League]] ||
|-
| 65 || 2025-03-01 || [[Bangladesh Youth Union]] ||
|-
| 66 || 2025-03-02 || [[Bangladesh Chhatra Maitri]] ||
|-
| 67 || 2025-03-04 || [[Weekly Ekota]] ||
|-
| 68 || 2025-03-04 || [[Chhatra Jamiat Bangladesh]] ||
|-
| 69 || 2025-03-05 || [[Islami Chhatra Andolan Bangladesh]] ||
|-
| 70 || 2025-03-06 || [[Bangladesh Development Party]] ||
|-
| 71 || 2025-03-06 || [[Bangladesh Social Democratic Party]] || {{no|Delete}}
|-
| 72 || 2025-03-06 || [[Bangladesh Supreme Party]] ||
|-
| 73 || 2025-03-13 || [[National People's Party (Bangladesh)]] ||
|-
| 74 || 2025-03-13 || [[National Doctors Forum]] || {{yes2|Accepted at AfC}}
|-
| 75 || 2025-03-14 || [[Moglabazar Thana]] ||
|-
| 76 || 2025-03-14 || [[Jalalabad Thana]] || {{TBA|At AfD}}
|-
| 77 || 2025-03-15 || [[Shah Poran Thana]] || {{TBA|At AfD}}
|-
| 78 || 2025-03-15 || [[South Surma Thana]] || {{TBA|At AfD}}
|-
| 79 || 2025-03-15 || [[Kotwali Model Thana, Sylhet]] ||
|-
| 80 || 2025-03-15 || [[Kotwali Model Thana, Barisal]] || {{TBA|At AfD}}
|-
| 81 || 2025-03-18 || [[Thana Nirbahi Officer]] ||
|-
| 82 || 2025-03-19 || [[Bandar Thana, Barisal]] || {{TBA|At AfD}}
|-
| 83 || 2025-03-19 || [[Kawnia Thana, Barisal]] || {{TBA|At AfD}}
|-
| 84 || 2025-03-20 || [[Mongla Cement Factory]] || {{yes2|Accepted at AfC}}
|-
| 85 || 2025-03-20 || [[Samannito Sangskritik Sangsad]] || {{no|Draftify}}
|-
| 86 || 2025-03-21 || [[Bangladesh Lawyers Council]] ||
|-
| 87 || 2025-03-21 || [[Bangladesh Islami Writers Forum]] ||
|-
| 88 || 2025-03-21 || [[Jatiyo Jubo Mohila Party]] || {{no|Redirect}}
|-
| 89 || 2025-03-22 || [[Bangladesh Chasi Kalyan Samiti]] || {{no2|Merge}}
|-
| 90 || 2025-03-23 || [[Kishore Kantho]] || {{no2|Merge}}
|-
| 91 || 2025-03-24 || [[Bangladesh Adarsha Shikkakh Federation]] || {{perhaps|No consensus}}
|-
| 92 || 2025-03-27 || [[Nirjhor Residential Area]] ||
|-
| 93 || 2025-04-01 || [[Bangladesh Mosque Mission]] || {{no|Redirect}}
|-
| 94 || 2025-04-04 || [[Weekly Pratibeshi]] ||
|-
| 95 || 2025-04-12 || [[Pagla Thana]] ||
|-
| 96 || 2025-05-05 || [[Ershad ministry]] ||
|-
| 97 || 2025-05-06 || [[Gafargaon Thana]] ||
|-
| 98 || 2025-05-06 || [[Gaurnadi]] ||
|-
| 99 || 2025-05-06 || [[Wazirpur]] ||
|-
| 100 || 2025-05-07 || [[Wazirpur Model Thana]] ||
|-
| 101 || 2025-05-09 || [[Sandwip Municipality]] ||
|-
| 102 || 2025-05-10 || [[Gafargaon Municipality]] ||
|-
| 103 || 2025-05-10 || [[Maheshkhali]] ||
|-
| 104 || 2025-05-10 || [[Katiadi]] ||
|-
| 105 || 2025-05-11 || [[Mirkadim Municipality]] ||
|-
| 106 || 2025-05-11 || [[Muladi Municipality]] ||
|-
| 107 || 2025-05-11 || [[Banaripara Municipality]] ||
|-
| 108 || 2025-05-11 || [[Monohardi]] ||
|-
| 109 || 2025-05-11 || [[Gaurnadi Model Thana]] ||
|-
| 110 || 2025-05-12 || [[Bangladesh Sangskritik Muktijote]] ||
|-
| 111 || 2025-05-12 || [[Operation Uttaran]] ||
|-
| 112 || 2025-05-12 || [[Morrelgonj Municipality]] ||
|-
| 113 || 2025-05-14 || [[Shyamnagar Municipality]] ||
|-
| 114 || 2025-05-14 || [[Islampur Municipality]] ||
|-
| 115 || 2025-05-18 || [[Patharghata Municipality]] ||
|-
| 116 || 2025-05-20 || [[Bamna Thana]] || {{no|Redirect}}
|-
| 117 || 2025-05-20 || [[Amtali Thana]] || {{no|Redirect}}
|-
| 118 || 2025-05-21 || [[Kashimpur Thana]] || {{perhaps|No consensus}}
|-
| 119 || 2025-05-21 || [[Konabari Thana]] ||
|-
| 120 || 2025-05-21 || [[Pubail Thana]] ||
|-
| 121 || 2025-05-21 || [[Bason Thana]] || {{TBA|At AfD}}
|-
| 122 || 2025-05-21 || [[Gacha Thana]] || {{TBA|At AfD}}
|-
| 123 || 2025-05-21 || [[Tongi East Thana]] || {{TBA|At AfD}}
|-
| 124 || 2025-05-21 || [[Tongi West Thana]] || {{perhaps|No consensus}}
|-
| 125 || 2025-06-07 || [[Betagi Municipality]] ||
|-
| 126 || 2025-06-07 || [[Lalmohan Municipality]] ||
|-
| 127 || 2025-06-08 || [[Hazirhat Thana]] ||
|-
| 128 || 2025-06-08 || [[Airport Thana, Rajshahi]] || {{TBA|At AfD}}
|-
| 129 || 2025-06-09 || [[Swarupkathi]] ||
|-
| 130 || 2025-06-18 || [[Kalapara Municipality]] ||
|-
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet creating inappropriate articles is a chronic problem going back to the first article they created, more than a year ago. They have received numerous warning about this on their talk page, in discussions elsewhere, and in the form of cleanup tags on their articles.
:They have created 130 articles. Forty-seven (36%) are no longer stand alone articles (22 deleted, 13 draftified, 7 redirected, and 5 merged). Another 10 are at AfD now. There has been no consensus on three of their articles. One has been kept at AfD.
:Govvy is far from the only editor who has expressed concern. Others who have PRODed, nominated for deletion, draftified, or redirected BangladeshiEditorInSylhet's articles on non-notable topics include: {{U|Chronos.Zx}}, {{U|Daiyusha}}, {{U|Georgethedragonslayer}}, {{U|Noleander}}, {{U|Onel5969}}, {{U|Owais Al Qarni}}, {{U|Somajyoti}}, {{U|Vinegarymass911}}, {{U|আফতাবুজ্জামান }}, and myself. Five of us are participants at WikiProject Bangladesh, so you can assume we are sufficiently conversant with Bengali to understand the sources.
:Another indicator of just how much BangladeshiEditorInSylhet still doesn't grasp [[WP:N|notability]] is their !voting [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=BangladeshiEditorInSylhet&max=&startdate=&altname= record at AfD], where their recommendation has been consistent with the consensus outcome only 34.3% of the time. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 10:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::One issue that stood out to me was their retaliation to someone nominating their article for deletion. They nominated a handful of articles I created for deletion after I nominated one of their article. This is something they have done in the past [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet#Notice]] with {{U|Somajyoti}}.[[User:Vinegarymass911|Vinegarymass911]] ([[User talk:Vinegarymass911|talk]]) 11:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::That was not a retaliation, it was simply a misunderstanding, if it was a retaliation, then even articles which were properly sourced would have been deleted, I also in some cases, nominated pages created by others before any dispute, i AfD'd pages for not being relavant or not being properly sourced, i am open to peaceful, discussions with good faith, i even withdrew a nomination when i was convinced that the page meets Wikipedia policies and plus those 3 pages of yours had some issues, not because of retaliation. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 11:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Is it just a coincidence that they happened at the same time? [[User:Vinegarymass911|Vinegarymass911]] ([[User talk:Vinegarymass911|talk]]) 12:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::See this: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morning Glory School and College]], even before 3 of your pages were nominated and after you nominated 1 of my pages recently, i nominated it because it had notability issues, so i nominated pages even before, so my intent was not to retaliate. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 12:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::That's a red herring and you know it. You nominated three of my pages right after I nominated your article. You had to look up my contribution to find those three articles. You made three deletion discussion within 20 minutes ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Ejaz]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Abul Kashem Mia]]) and two hours after I made [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishore Kantho]]. [[User:Vinegarymass911|Vinegarymass911]] ([[User talk:Vinegarymass911|talk]]) 16:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::No, I regularly visit WikiProject Bangladesh and i edit numerous pages, i found a link to a few pages and i found notability issues, I knew you nominated Kishore Kantho but i had already responded, Why would i retaliate? It is unnecessary, my intent was not to retaliate, plus you did not respond properly, i nominated an article for deletion, which had notability issues and the community agreed to delete it as there were no in-depth sources, that was before you nominated my articles for deletion, my intent was not to retaliate. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 17:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::As for Somajyoti, you nominated seven of their articles in about 30 minutes. [[User:Vinegarymass911|Vinegarymass911]] ([[User talk:Vinegarymass911|talk]]) 17:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yes i did in 30 minutes but not to retaliate, plus didn't Worldbruce and Chronos.Zx nominate several of my articles for deletion, you don't see a record of me nominating their pages for deletion even after nominations and this here, why? Because there are no notability issues in their pages that have been found as of 25 June 2025 and Aftabuzzaman as well, they nominated several of my pages for deletion, no AfD on their pages because there were no issues found, and even if there was, i always check pages and their sources before AfDs, i improve it if anything can be found, and if not, then AfD but because of Wikipedia's be bold policies, not for retaliation, wasnt there another ANI discussion about me and Somajyoti, Mehedi Abedin gave the solution and it was a misunderstanding between me and Somajyoti, not a AfD war or retaliation. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 17:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks @[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]], for the ping. Yes, I’ve previously nominated several non-notable articles created by @[[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]], mostly on local Schools, and none of those AfDs resulted in a "keep" outcome. Initially, I assumed that the user was new and would take time to understand Wiki notability guidelines and policies. But, it now appears that they have consistently ignored warnings and continue to create articles with no clear  notability. [[User:Chronos.Zx|<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;">Chronos.Zx</span>]] ([[User talk:Chronos.Zx|talk]]) 14:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::Actually since 2023 (when i first began), I did not understand much of Wikipedia and i will admit, initially when i first started editing, I did make some pages mostly school or biography related, that did not pass GNG, but i have tried and i have attempted to improve the quality of several pages and I create pages nowadays in a different way, I dont add every drop of information or try to add every source on the planet when I first create the page, I first add some information and when i have less issues and some time, i gradually improve those pages after i create it, I have not ignored warnings, yes i do have exams and assignments i need to work on but I also try to focus on other activities and i see the warnings and notifications, and plus a few of those local schools' pages did not meet notability, i in my first 12 months of editing did not fully understand notability, nowadays i do try to make some progress, i am not gonna be Albert Einstein in every field, i never try to ignore concerns or information, Exams and assignments, educational work cuts time but i still try, if you have concerns, please inform me in my talk page and what i need to improve, Thanks. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 14:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*Having participated in some of the AfDs involving the creations of BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, I find it concerning that he is still not recognising his problems. Given the concerns raised by Worldbruce, I think we are at a point when a '''topic ban from Bangladesh broadly construed''' should be on the table. [[User:REDISCOVERBHARAT|REDISCOVERBHARAT]] ([[User talk:REDISCOVERBHARAT|talk]]) 16:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Hello, it seems that you have joined this discussion. I do not think a ban from Bangladesh-related topics will be valid, first of all not all my contributions are flawed, i have stopped vandalism and created pages about essential Bangladeshi topics, also I find it surprising this is all in 2025, ill discuss on that later, again this is like shutting down a bakery because just two packets consisted of moldy bread, you don't shut it down, you complain to them directly as third parties may sometimes be biased, and give suggestions to the person who you believe has "issues" on how they can solve it, that is a example right there, i have been contributing since 2023 and undid vandalism in many cases and improved a huge number of pages and fixed errors and removed wrong information, added sources and improved topics, many of which are about my country, Bangladesh and i won't say I am the best but i did try to do a lot, a ban here is excessive, alternative options would be better then you have a contributor still on the platform who is undoing vandalism, creating pages (whom other contributors should improve the page afterwards to help the author or inform on talk page properly), and then nobody's workload is increased. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 16:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*:"I find it concerning that he is still not recognising his problems" — I have recognized the issue, i know, i am trying to improve it and if i made mistakes, then Wikipedia is a site for collaboration, not for just blowing up someone's phone with AfD notifications and ANI threads, if one of my pages don't pass Notability or other issues, its not only my responsibility, it should be improved by other contributors too, if not, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia? [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 16:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Question: is there any sort of ideological or NPOV aspect to these disputes? Or is this solely about editorial choices (sourcing, notability, etc.)? --<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]]  •  [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 16:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Notability is a issue that can simply be solved without a ban, just proper explanation and recommendations, notability is the issue here. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 16:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has highlighted a number of disturbing [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] behaviours by BangladeshEditorInSylhet.
# Right off the bat blaming the reporter, {{U|Govvy}}, ({{tq|"calm down there"}}) for us being here. The same shifting of responsibility and refusal to accept that the [[WP:BURDEN|onus]] is on him can be seen in recent AfDs: {{tq|"you should check sources to add something ... but of course I didn't see none of that being done by you"}},[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirjhor Cantonment Public School and College|[1]]] {{tq|"It's better to search and contribute to the article before nominating it for AfD"}},[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajshahi Cantonment Public School and College|[2]]] and {{tq|"improve the article yourself then"}}.[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tongi West Thana|[3]]]
# [[WP:BLUDGEON|Bludgeoning]] discussions early and often with walls of rambling, often off-topic text rather than evidence to support his position. He exhibits this in recent AfDs too, for example [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kotwali Model Thana, Barisal|[4]]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamna Thana|[5]]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashimpur Thana|[6]]].
# [[Wikipedia:Don't retaliate|Retaliating]] against other editors (the timeline makes it clear that it was revenge, despite his protestations). No action was taken last month [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1186#AfD war between BangladeshiEditorInSylhet and Somajyoti|at ANI]] because he apologized and asked for help with his {{tq|"anger issues"}}. But he retaliated again weeks later against another editor, {{U|Vinegarymass911}}, as described above. If something might even ''appear'' like retaliation, it should be avoided. [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|Disrupting Wikipedia]] by immediately nominating articles by someone who has nominated one of your articles is inappropriate. (By my count, his three nominations of Vinegarymass911's articles garnered 7 keep !votes and none for any other outcome; no one else saw any problems with the articles). Denying it and saying {{tq|"if this was [retaliation] you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs"}} is not a good look.
# An inflated sense of self importance. He argues that he has made {{tq|"immense contributions"}} and therefore should not be blocked. While not all his contributions are flawed, the overwhelming majority of them are obvious comments like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lalmohan_Municipality&diff=prev&oldid=1294382637 this] on many article talk pages. [[No shit, Sherlock]]. Or things like these [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawa_Bhaban&diff=1284457687&oldid=1284451639 52 consecutive edits to add 52 links] to the work parameter of one article's citations. (Whether such links are good or bad, they  aren't even done correctly, since disambiguated newspaper names should be piped to remove the disambiguation text.) His contributions may not be as great as he thinks they are. In any case, although every good-faith editor is important, [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable|none of us is irreplaceable]].
These behaviours are not the main point of this incident, but should be borne in mind when crafting the finer points of a solution. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 20:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well... I can't reasonably disagree. I do have hopes that an article creation ban will help, and I also think that these are the kind of issues that young editors often have, and are solved with age. I would hope that if we end up in cban or indef territory in the future that we instead consider a similar but time-limited sanction. A "you're not ready yet, but you're free to try again later". -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:Well yes, i did add links to publishers of citations but that is not the only thing, i have also reverted vandalism and added more information to many pages, and im fine with the accusations of retaliation, and i didnt blame Govvy for everyone being here, just a few of Govvy's accusations were wrong, thats why i said "calm down". [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 03:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::I already discussed about how my intent was not to retaliate, but if it is assumed, lets say i see some non-notable pages while finding articles to improve by searching on categories, what am i supposed to do with them, delay a nomination of AfD? [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 03:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

===Proposal: edit restriction from mainspace article creation===
{{atop|status=Restriction imposed|1=By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, {{noping|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet}} is indefinitely restrcted from creating new articles in mainspace. If they wish to create new articles, they must be submitted through the Articles for Creation process. For clarity, note that this also covers articles created in userspace or draftspace being moved to mainspace. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)}}
As an AfD closer, I have observed the issues described above. I do not think a tban from Bangladesh would be appropriate, since the issue, at least as far as I see right now, is persistent trouble with notability, which is not inherent to any particular topic. Therefore, I propose that BangladeshiEditorInSylhet be restricted from creating new articles in mainspace. If they wish to create new articles, they must be submitted through the Articles for Creation process. Once BEIS has a good track record of drafts being accepted, this editing restriction can be lifted. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support as proposer'''. (Oops, forgot to put this in the first time around. Remedying.) -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:You know what, I actually agree, even though AfCs take time, Asilvering is correct here but what are the requirements for it to be lifted? [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 04:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]], if this passes, it would be a community-imposed ban, so you'd have to come back to the community (at [[WP:AN]]) to lift it, or convince the admin who sets the restriction that it's obviously not necessary anymore. If it were me setting the sanction, what I would want to see is that your drafts were no longer being declined at AfC, for a period of at least a few months. The community typically doesn't want to hear appeals before six months have passed. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:Temporary restriction from direct mainspace creation until a record of drafts being properly sourced and created in mainspace via AfC is not bad, i '''agree with Asilvering'''. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 04:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' indefinite  restriction on creating mainspace articles. [[User:REDISCOVERBHARAT|REDISCOVERBHARAT]] ([[User talk:REDISCOVERBHARAT|talk]]) 02:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Ok now it just seems like suppression than an actual solution, an indefinite restriction is not needed, i don't only create pages about non-notable topics, i created some pages about important topics and i could do more stuff, indefinite restriction won't do anything here, Asilvering's proposal is already correct, if my drafts get submitted for AfC more often (I already made many drafts and some were approved after submission, and they later didnt face notability issues) and my creations move more towards notability, then restriction will be lifted. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 06:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*::@[[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]], @[[User:REDISCOVERBHARAT|REDISCOVERBHARAT]] is supporting the proposal that ''you yourself'' have supported. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 10:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::Oh ok, i misunderstood maybe, i thought he wanted an all-out ban, and since thats a bit too much, i replied but i apologize. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 11:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*:When you were blocked for one week for claims of disruptive editing on [[Mohammed Zubair (journalist)]], how would you feel if you were indefinitely restricted just for a few flaws while you did amazing things elsewhere? [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk]]) 06:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' indef creation ban in main-space and also impose move restriction. It's July 2025 and although there is always huge disagreements and agreements at AfD, I don't think in all that time Bangladesh has learned the basics for what constitutes GNG when building an article. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 20:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' restricted from creating new articles in mainspace. In the collapsed list of articles above, BEIS has succeeded in getting two through AfC recently, which shows promise. It is a better record than his mainspace creations being kept at AfD. This incident reminds me of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#CIR problems?|FloridaArmy's restrictions]]. They came about after he had an "incredible" 46 of his articles deleted out of what was then 497 creations (and an AfD match rate of only 60%), both of which are better numbers than BEIS's. Additional sanctions may be imposed (as [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#FloridaArmy and AfC woes|happened to FloridaArmy]]) if [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] behaviour continues, or if AfD or AfC is abused. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 20:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
'''Support''' indefinite restriction on creating mainspace articles. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 07:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Grayfell selectivelly removing reliable sources from several articles ==

Since early May the editor Grayfell has been removing a huge amount of content and reliable sources from articles such as White Mexicans,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1289519048&oldid=1289516904][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1291730735&oldid=1291120881][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1296265205&oldid=1296007224] Mexicans,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1292098944&oldid=1290599127] White Latin Americans[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Latin_Americans&diff=1293853765&oldid=1292151238] , White People[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296622593&oldid=1295519827] etc. on a very selective manner, targetting specifically sources related to European ancestry, usually vaguely claiming that such content is SYNTH, OR, Primary or unverifiable when it isn't. Examples of this are:
*Here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1291123202] tagged a source that textually states[https://books.google.com.mx/books?hl=es&id=XPl8c4XINgoC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=well+built] that the population of western Mexico ''"resemble the northern Spanish people -tall, well built, often with blue eyes...''" because according to him ''it doesn't mention the term White''
*Here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1296238393] Grayfell removed a large scale study by the University College London source because ''it isn't only about Mexico and is a primary source'' but let another source (LatinoBarometro) stay in there despite being about multiple countries (and being an actual primary source).
*Here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1291730735&oldid=1291725307] Grayfell removed a field survey that used the presence of blond hair to classify a Mexican as White arguing that it was ''a blatant misrepresentation of the source'' when it can be easily verified here [https://es.scribd.com/document/754471181/villarreal-2010-stratification-by-skin-color-in-contemporary-mexico] in the page 19 (he also claims that its a primary source when it isn't, (the American Sociological Association is retelling field research carried out by Mexico's MIT panel years earlier).
*In the article of White Mexicans[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1296265205&oldid=1296262614] and White people[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296621945&oldid=1296617553] he removes the results of surveys carried out by Mexico's government claiming that the phrasing is OR, SYNTH etc. when it couldn't be more literal, even when such phrasing was accepted by him and is present in the article of Mexico.
*When he abandoned the discussion in the talk page of the article of Mexico and I reached a consensus with other editors[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1286655422] he re-appeared only to revert and start the discussion all over again[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1286655422], dismissing multiple sources with talking points such as ''that a person is described as being of European appeareance does not mean that the person has European ancestry''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1275587551] (in that discussion he has been called out by other editors for being difficult to work with[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1277017958&oldid=1277017029]).
*Grayfell also claims government produced data has to be removed because they are primary sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_Mexicans&diff=1296267309&oldid=1296264221][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296621945&oldid=1296617553] (I'm certain that to start removing official governmental from Wikipedia because they're primary sources would have a very negative impact on the site as a whole).
*Despite repeatedly dismissing sources on the pretense of them being primary or tertiary he removed 4 secondary sources from the article of White People [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296622348&oldid=1296621945].
*He claims that the pie chart in the source of Encyclopedia Brittanica cannot be used to state that 31% of Mexico's population are ''"other" ethnic groups on which European ancestry is significant'' despite such statement appearing in source because the pie chart says 31% ''"other"'' but he has no such problem when it comes to the World Factbook which says that 10% of Mexico's population are ''other''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Latin_Americans&diff=prev&oldid=1293516854] (months earlier he understood what Encyclopedia Brittanica was saying as he added himself that White Mexicans are about one third of the population to the infobox[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1271802421&oldid=1271801282] but then started claiming that he didn't read the source well).
*Has repeatedly removed tables related to blood groups in Mexico claiming them to be SYNTH and OR[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1289519048&oldid=1289518827] when ''literally'' ever single sentence used in the article appears in source (explained with extreme detail here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_Mexicans&diff=1274726410&oldid=1274594149]).
*Days ago he added a ''failed verification'' tag to a source because ''it doesn't seem to support that the term "light skinned Mexican" is commonly used''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1296270013&oldid=1296268180] even though by now he is undeniably well aware that such term is very commonly used and earlier the same day he removed multiple sources that use it right before tagging that source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1296247857&oldid=1296238393].

There's even more edits by him that are like this, but I think this gives a good idea of the way this editor is acting, when confronted about any of this on talk pages he will ignore the discussions and move onto other articles to do the same contested edits and more, if one tries to edit those articles he reverts them claiming OR, SYNTH etc. or that an editor ''does not have consensus'' (as if his edits that remove a huge amount of sources had consensus or didn't needed to be discussed to begin with). I've written on Grayfell's talk page twice but he closes/deletes[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGrayfell&diff=1296621875&oldid=1296618857][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGrayfell&diff=1291221222&oldid=1291219657] my messages so it seems this venue is needed. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 23:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|Notification process is processed.}}
:I've issued Grayfell the notification about this discussion on their talk page - please remember to do so next time. Not going to comment on their conduct. <span class="nowrap" style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Franklin Gothic Medium;background:linear-gradient(to right,#fd9f88,#79382c,#503e60);padding:0 4px;">[[User talk:Gommeh|»]]&nbsp;[[User:Gommeh|<span class="nowrap" style="color:#fbffff;">Gommeh&nbsp;(he/him)</span>]]</span> 00:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Gommeh|Gommeh]]I did so nearly at the same time as you, now there's a duplicate notice in there, thank you for your attention regardless. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 00:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Gommeh, it's disruptive to snipe ANI posts notifications. You didn't wait 100 seconds after the post before sniping and complaining. Wait a few minutes. [[Special:Contributions/12.75.115.75|12.75.115.75]] ([[User talk:12.75.115.75|talk]]) 00:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Must not have seen the time lmao <span class="nowrap" style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Franklin Gothic Medium;background:linear-gradient(to right,#fd9f88,#79382c,#503e60);padding:0 4px;">[[User talk:Gommeh|»]]&nbsp;[[User:Gommeh|<span class="nowrap" style="color:#fbffff;">Gommeh&nbsp;(he/him)</span>]]</span> 01:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::The timestamps are on the posts. Maybe it was 120 seconds instead of 100. You didn't contribute anything, you simply sniped a warning and walked away. Not constructive, disruptive. [[Special:Contributions/12.75.115.78|12.75.115.78]] ([[User talk:12.75.115.78|talk]]) 01:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::It takes way less time than that to go to their talk page and copy paste the template but point taken. I'd expect it to be done in 30-45secs max since it has to be done soon after. <span class="nowrap" style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Franklin Gothic Medium;background:linear-gradient(to right,#fd9f88,#79382c,#503e60);padding:0 4px;">[[User talk:Gommeh|»]]&nbsp;[[User:Gommeh|<span class="nowrap" style="color:#fbffff;">Gommeh&nbsp;(he/him)</span>]]</span> 02:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:This has been simmering for a while. In my opinion, this is filibustering by Pob3qu3 to preserve their preferred changes, and I don't accept that Pob3qu3's summary of these edits is accurate.
:Here's my brief summary: In the last few months I've tried to clean-up these articles. There is a lot of [[WP:OR]]/[[WP:SYNTH]] etc. related to this topic. One problem here is that some of this content is/was superficially supported by sources (at a glance) but some of if has been totally unsupported. Sources are also interwoven and selectively chosen, which makes untangling this a chore. These dense text-wads are usually copy/pasted across multiple articles without regard for context or due weight. Multiple times I have found some bit of wording which was poorly supported by a source and thought 'didn't I already remove this?' only to realize it was at some other article.
:I have spent months trying to explain the issues with these changes, but Pob3qu3 either doesn't understand what I've been saying or chooses not to accept it.  In January I started this: [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 53#White Mexicans and blood type]]. I thought focusing on a single issue would be helpful, but this was a mistake. It dragged on far, far, far too long, and I can't reasonably expect anyone to read the whole thing, but my interpretation is that there was, at least, broad consensus for some sort of change.  I was certainly not the only editor to see problems with Pob3qu3's understanding of Wikipedia's policies. In response, Pob3qu3 filed a spurious [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Php2000/Archive#06_February_2025|retaliatory SPI]] against me and {{Their|Pob3qu3}} other apparent opponents.  As far as I can tell, they have not acknowledged how inappropriate that was, much less apologized. In February, {{U|Tiggerjay}} started this: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Pob3qu3 disruptive editing via OR/SYNTH against consensus]] which lead to more filibustering and CIVILPOV.  
:There is also a [[WP:FRINGE]] issue. It appears that all of Pob3qu3's edits have been related to race and ethnicity in Mexico. Most of these edits have been related to what percentage of Mexico's population is "White". Pob3qu3 is willing to disparaged or editorialized some sources to death, sometimes without sources at all ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=839051161 as one of many examples]). Other sources, no matter how flimsy or passing, are included in excessive detail, again with unsupported editorializing and commentary ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=839051697 a later edit from the same batch]). Parts of these edits have lingered in the article for years, and even when sourced, the wording is often adjusted without apparent regard for those sources. Obviously, this is a mess. Occasionally other editors have tried to clean this mess up,([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=982376827&oldid=982373352 one arbitrary example]) but Pob3qu3 has restored their preferred wording, citing 'consensus' or similar. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 01:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::Your reply reads as if there hasn't been discussion and changes in the recent months related to these points when there has been newer discussions and consensus, at times with the participation of other editors even, like on the article of Mexico. One of the biggest issues here is that you prefer to remove completely reliable sources instead of discussing rewordings/rephrasings (it is clear by now that I do not oppose rephrasings that are ''closer to source'' or that reduce ''editorializing''), at times you've made proposals which I've told you are good but then you never talk about them again and instead keep removing reliable sources. The SPI was dismissed for being a content dispute, not sure what else to say about this as many SPIs are filled in the midst of severe content disputes, you probably could go to the SPI noticeboard and find examples of this right now. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 01:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
* I'd '''propose indefinitely topic banning Pob3qu3 from racial topics'''. It's astonishing that editors put up with the tendentious arguments in the "Contentious" discussion they linked. Pob3qu3 says they reached consensus with other editors, but I'm instead seeing other editors raise serious issues with Pob3qu3's proposal leading to no consensus at all in February. Then, in April, one other editor joined and agreed with Pob3qu3, at which point the proposal was inserted into the article. It's not unreasonable to revert and restart discussion in a situation like that, and the diff is misleadingly presented here. I find others to be misleading as well. In looking into this, the verbosity of both Pob3qu3 and Grayfell was a barrier to understanding, so I'd urge both editors not to bludgeon this discussion. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 02:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] did you read the discussion carefully? as the February-April discussion progressed everybody proposed and was ok with the different paragraph proposals[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#Contentious] except Grayfell, in fact he was the only one being called out by other editors for being uncooperative [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1277842942&oldid=1277827034][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1277017958&oldid=1277017029]. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 04:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::That was an exhausting read. Looks like FF counted correctly, One editor agreed with you. You linked to both comments that agree. They are both from the same person. [[Special:Contributions/12.75.115.75|12.75.115.75]] ([[User talk:12.75.115.75|talk]]) 04:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Well given that there was 4 active editors in the discussion, (me, Grayfell and other two) that amounts to something doesn't it? Also, Even if only one called out his uncooperative behavior directly all editors except Grayfell were ok with the proposed additions to the article. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 05:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]], I hesitate to ask, but have you had a look at [[WP:NORN#White Mexicans and blood type]]? I'm fairly sure that's the noticeboard report @[[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] refers to below. Yes, it's still about racial topics, but... -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::It seems you didn't link to the actual report, but in the talk page of White Mexicans there's currently a discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Mexicans#Table_of_blood_types_and_general_SYNTH_issues] focused on sources realted to blood groups, as that one progressed, issues with Grayfell similar to those observed in the article of Mexico arose, as simply every text proposal was SYNTH to him, it got to the point that I had to make an extremely literal and detailed explanation to him[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_Mexicans&diff=1274726410&oldid=1274594149] even giving him the page and paragraph number for each sentence for him to leave the tables on the article until he returned to remove them months later still claiming it to be SYNTH[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1289519048&oldid=1289518827]. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 04:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]], please do not assume intent of other editors. I linked precisely where I meant to. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Asilvering|asilvering]], if I'm picking up what you're putting down, you're saying that discussion is evidence that a stricter sanction might be needed. I don't disagree, but even this limited TBAN hasn't gained any explicit support. As with many ANI reports, bludgeoning can make response from uninvolved editors/admins difficult. Maybe we need a subsection for the sanction proposal? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 13:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Firefangledfeathers}} I honestly find confusing how you've been repeatedly trying to get me sanctioned on this discussion despite all the diffs in the opening report that exhibit questionable behavior from Grayfell (most of which you haven't on commented yet) and a ban/block for Grayfell having actually received clearer support. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 17:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC) 
::::::@[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]], yes, you've read me correctly. Truthfully, I'm struggling to articulate a satisfying reason why I shouldn't at least set an indefinite pblock from the most-affected articles and talk pages (eg [[Mexico]], [[White Latin Americans]], etc), if not a unilateral indef. Presently the most satisfying one is "well, Firefangledfeathers didn't, and they're very sensible". The comment above, asserting that a ban for Grayfell has clearer support, is yet another mystifying example of the problem. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|I'm struggling to articulate a satisfying reason why I shouldn't}} One would be that to block an editor (without any actual reason, all that you've commented on me is that I make lenghty replies) that filled a report with several diffs showing questionable behavior at best from another editor would set a negative precedent and drive away other editors from using ANI or another noticeboards to report conflicts in the future. Another reason would be that you haven't commented on any of the aforementioned questionable diffs at all, which is totally relevant to this discussion as much of my lenghty replies have been caused by the behavior that Grayfell exhibits in those diffs (not replying to discussion and instead going to remove sources from other articles for example, thing that he did even after being reported here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1296891506]).
::::::::{{tq|The comment above, asserting that a ban for Grayfell has clearer support, is yet another mystifying example of the problem}} This looks like a more explicit and substantiated ban proposal to me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1297106204] and so is my subsequent reply in support [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1297117313]. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 01:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)  
:::::::[[User:Asilvering|asilvering]], I do find that Pob3qu3 has the lack of receptivity to feedback that often leads to an indef being necessary, but I didn't see enough for a unilateral siteblock yet. The pblock suggestion is a good one, and I hadn't considered it. Part of me feels that once you get past 4 or so pblocks (if we're including talk pages), a TBAN is probably a better sanction. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 01:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That's true. @[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]], if you'd like to start a subsection for the tban proposal, I do have hopes that will help. I'll certainly support. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::So, what's an appropriate way/mechanism (this is, that is not considered that I'm bludgeoning/filibustering etc.) to get the discussion to focus on the behavior of the user who was actually reported to ANI, a quick glance to other ANI reports show that discussion pertinent to the behavior of the reported user is the one that is prioritized and for some reason that is not happening here, the big majority of the discussion has been focused on the comments in the talk page of Mexico with the rest of the diffs (objectivelly unjustified tagging/removal of sources) being almost completely ignored, in fact various times I've called the discussion to focus on the behavior/diffs rather than to recreate the discussion of the talk page of Mexico here (which is like the opposite of bludgeoning[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1296856171][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1297295628]). [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 04:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The above comment is one sentence. This, and the description of my edits as {{tq|objectivelly unjustified}}, are good demonstrations of Pob3qu3's battleground mentality. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 06:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::How is it justified to tag as ''failed verification''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1291123202] a source that textually states that Mexicans from the western regions of Mexico ''"resemble the northern Spanish people -tall, well built, often with blue eyes..."''[https://books.google.com.mx/books?hl=es&id=XPl8c4XINgoC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=well+built] because  because according to your summary ''it doesn't mention the term White''? Another example would be you repeatedly removing mentions of blond hair being used as a criteria to classify a Mexican as White from different articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1291730735&oldid=1291725307] when its verifiable in the page 19[https://es.scribd.com/document/754471181/villarreal-2010-stratification-by-skin-color-in-contemporary-mexico] (I told you this on talk pages[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_Latin_Americans&diff=prev&oldid=1295812167] before) here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=prev&oldid=1296581642] besides removing mention of blond hair again you also tag it as a primary source when it isn't (the American Sociological Association is retelling field research carried out by Mexico's MIT panel made  years earlier) or as failed verification[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1296884937&oldid=1296884186] even after being reported here for doing so. These are some examples of edits by you that simply have no possible justification. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Pob3qu3's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Pob3qu3-20250622050300-12.75.115.75-20250622044800 reply to me above] is a neat illustration of the problem for those who want quick insight.
#Pob3qu3 says "all editors except Grayfell were ok with the proposed additions"
# {{u|Johnuniq}}'s last two comments in the February–April discussion were warnings to Pob3qu3 about staying on-topic and the very clear "Do not edit the article with anything concerning Mexican ethnic composition unless there is a positive prior consensus." ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Johnuniq-20250212053600-Pob3qu3-20250212050000 comment 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Johnuniq-20250213024600-Pob3qu3-20250213023800 comment 2])
# {{u|Tiggerjay}}'s last two comments in the discussion were both expressing skepticism that sources discussing about skin-color-based discrimination correlate exactly with estimates of racial population numbers ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Tiggerjay-20250219044100-Pob3qu3-20250218083100.comment 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Tiggerjay-20250219155800-Pob3qu3-20250219085400 comment 2]). TJ had gone to great lengths to be clear that their silence afterward should not be taken as agreement: {{tqd|"understand that my silence is NOT to be interpreted as agreement or consent. As such, do not consider my absence from conversations consent, but rather more of a WP:DFTT and WP:BAIT mitigation"}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pob3qu3#c-Tiggerjay-20250212061200-Blanket_Reply user talk comment]).
# {{u|Remsense}}'s last few comments were exhortations to follow the sources, ending with the warning to {{tqd|"Just say what sources say, and don't go out of your way to make other points if they're not themselves expressly stated by sources. If the sources don't support a specific percentage, don't add one implicitly. That's tendentious."}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Remsense-20250302234600-Pob3qu3-20250302234200 comment])
# {{u|Davemc0}} did a commendable amount of crafting compromise proposals and grew evidently frustrated with the length of the discussion, blaming Grayfell in particular. They dropped out with support for their last proposal and advice for Pob3qu3: {{tqd|"when your patience wears thin you try to pull in fresh opinions, such as at [[WP:DRN]]"}}. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Davemc0-20250227010500-Grayfell-20250223003600 comment]). Davemc0's proposal was completely different from the content Pob3qu3 eventually added to the article, so there's no reason to assume Davemc0 was "ok with the proposed additions". (see collapsed comparison below)
# {{u|Vers2333}} was the only one who was actually ok with the proposal. Vers2333 joined the discussion on April 20 to support Pob3qu3's changes, and Pob3qu3 inserted them a day later.
{{ctop|Collapsed comparison of versions}}
Dacemc0's version: {{tqb|White Mexicans are another major ethnic group in the country; and according to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2% of Mexico's population, and Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.Studies in 2017 and 2022 by the Mexican Institute of Geography and Statistics were framed in terms of skin tone, rather than race. In the 2022 study, Mexican adults self-report skin tone as 29.2% having light, 49.7% having medium, and 21.1% having dark tones.}}
Pob3qu3's version: {{tqb|Skin color surveys have been used to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country (a method that is commonly used in latin america to estimate the White ethnicity), according to 2017 and 2022 surveys by Mexico's Council to Prevent Discrimination 28-29% of Mexican people identified with light skin tones, more than 40% did so in a 2010 survey. Encyclopædia Britannica estimates that 31% of Mexico's population are other ethnic groups of which White Mexicans are a significant component. Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.}}
{{cbot}}

Pob3qu3 deeply misrepresented the discussion, and this came after I expressed concerns about the initial diffs being misrepresented. This editor is abusing ANI after they abused SPI. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 12:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] Actually the first venue on which I tried to open this complaint was DRN, but turns out its limited to 2000 characters so it wasn't possible for me to make this case there. On my previous reply, I specified "active editors" or what would be editors that activelly participed on the discussion, Johnuniq and Remsense were not active on it, Tiggerjay was more active on the discussion (albeit left early) and his posture is more complex as he claimed that the proposed paragraph was fine as long as it was specified that it was physicial appeareance[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1276492966&oldid=1276345240], to which I replied that it was no issue because Mexico's government ethnographic research is based on physical appeareance[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1276492966], then on his final comment he talked about how the article of White Mexicans described them as being people of European ancestry, not people of European appeareance[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1276517329], to which I replied that I was ok with changing the definition of White Mexicans on their article to ''Mexicans of European appeareance''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1276564941] (I still want to do this change), so I think it can be said that if we count Tiggerjay, there was actually 4 editors favouring the paragraph additions in one shape or form (me, Davemc0, Vers2333, and Tiggerjay) vs 1 (Grayfell). Regarding the differences between Davemc0 and my version, that's actually Vers2333 version which I added because he was the last person to make a proposal (and it isn't that different of the other versions). [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 17:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] Also, you've been focusing only on a tiny part of the problem (the discussion in the talk page of Mexico) what about all other edits and behaviors of Grayfell such as mass removal of sources and abandoning discussions on multiple talk pages (and even erasing my comments from his talk page) that I pointed out at the start of my complaint? Don't those warrant filling a report?. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 18:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::Based on their past talk page behavior, Pob3qu3 will drag this on indefinitely, if they are allowed to.
::In one of Pob3qu3's comments they link above, they say "{{tq|in order to have an European physical appeareance you must have European ancestry}}". I think this is useful as an example of the quality of editing here. This statement is not factually or logically correct. I'm not convinced it was even all that relevant to the discussion. The proposed phrase "Mexicans of European appearance" is just a clunky and euphemistic way of saying 'White Mexicans'. As far as I can tell, reliable sources do not use phrase "Mexicans of European appearance" at all, much less define what that actually means in a usable way. This is a pseudo-compromise. Trying to tweak the wording cannot bypass the much deeper source and OR issues, and this is another example of where it would make these problems worse.
::[[WP:USERTALKSTOP]] is not a valid justification for bringing my behavior to this noticeboard. I have already explained the problems with these edits multiple times on multiple pages in excruciating detail. Demanding that I re-re-re-explain these issues is disruptive.  [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 20:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|I have already explained the problems with these edits multiple times on multiple pages in excruciating detail}} Most of the examples on my report haven't been explained at all, even when I asked you directly to do so in the talk pages[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_Latin_Americans&diff=1296421659&oldid=1296236103][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_Mexicans&diff=1296275605&oldid=1296268419], and in the case of the ones you explain your explanations are like what you just said in your last reply about how the statement "''in order to have an European physical appeareance you must have European ancestry'' is not factually or logically correct", how isn't it factually or logically correct that a person of European appeareance has European ancestry? If I'm ''dragging'' or better said, contesting your edits is because the reasonings you are using to remove several reliable sources are disconcerting to be honest. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 21:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Even though he is in the midst of a discussion here on ANI, Grayfell has moved on to continue the mass removal reliable sources/text from other articles, this time in the article of Mexicans[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1296885250&oldid=1295006093], the behavior he exhibits here is similar to how he would ignore my questions on talk page discussions and continue removing sources/texts from articles. As can be seen various of his edits are direct reincidencies of points for which he was reported, such as the removal of text regarding blood type distribution[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1296885250&oldid=1296884937] and the removal of Encyclopedia Brittanica and ethnic discrimination surveys performed by Mexico's government[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1296880214&oldid=1296879969] (that its "editorializing" is not really a valid argument for their removal, as a more literal rephrasing of those sources had already been agreed upon), regarding those governmental surveys in particular, in the previous diff and in the article of White People[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296621945&oldid=1296617553] a dynamic can be seen on which Grayfell does not remove these sources completely from the article, but removes their results only (an example of the more literal phrasing of these sources that I talk about appears there), I've commented to him that this is rather odd[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1296634290] but he hasn't said anything about it. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Right now, the lead article in [[WP:DYK]] is about one [[Diandra Forrest]] (which I have had the honor of writing most of). She has white skin, blonde hair, and green eyes; in fact she is known for it. And this is not at all due to European ancestry. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 01:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::According to her article that is because she has albinism, which is a health condition that is not related to race/ethnicity, not sure why to bring it here. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 06:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::In multiple places throughout this section you state that the presence of these characteristics - white skin, blonde hair - is a way to determine European ancestry. In fact the paragraph I'm responding to is one of them, "how isn't it factually or logically correct that a person of European appeareance[sic] has European ancestry?" Here is a specific case where it is neither factually nor logically correct. Since her picture is on the main page right now, I could not help but see the fallacy. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 15:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You are overlooking that albinism is a fairly rare condition and the fact that the source we were talking about uses the term European[https://books.google.com.mx/books?hl=es&id=XPl8c4XINgoC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=well+built] (I hope this reply, for being to a comment that is aimed at me is not taken as bludgeoning too!). [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 16:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC) 
* Per [[WP:VNOT]], the simple fact that a source exists for something doesn't necessarily guarantee inclusion. And at least at a glance, the arguments made here (that eg. the source doesn't mention the term "white" and its usage is therefore [[WP:SYNTH]] / [[WP:OR]], or that these are primary sources that are being misused) are reasonable ones. (Also, at a glance, Pob3qu3 was using opinion pieces for statements of fact in the article voice, which is generally inappropriate even before the risk of [[WP:SYNTH]] - eg. an opinion piece from El Universal is used [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1289525073&oldid=1289269188&title=Mexico here] as a source for the statement that seems to be at the core of the dispute.) And Pob3qu3 is clearly misrepresenting the consensus - going over the discussion [[Talk:Mexico#Contentious|here]], I see Tiggerjay, Grayfell, and Johnuniq all raising core concerns with the proposed additions that don't seem to have been really addressed. Beyond that, if you feel that there's a consensus, the thing to do is to take a concrete proposal and start an [[WP:RFC]] on it, or identify the locus of dispute and hold an RFC on that. There's certainly not a clear-cut enough consensus to rush to [[WP:ANI]] just because someone disagrees, anyway. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 17:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] do you think that tagging this source[https://books.google.com.mx/books?hl=es&id=XPl8c4XINgoC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=well+built] because it doesn't mention the term White like Grayfell did[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1291123202] was reasonable or were you talking about another of the events included on my initial report?. Also the opinion piece and other press sources were used because they speak about the social dynamics the government surveys were documenting, press sources are one of the best resource for this I think. It has to noted that since then I made a proposal using another governmental source to back that statement and Grayfell rejected it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1294485154] (Later I even made a proposal without using Encyclopedia Brittanica and he rejected it too[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1295013780]), to later on admit that the contested statement has always been obvious[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1295817184&oldid=1295013780]. Johnuniq didn't really participate on the discussion and I already elaborated in deep about Tiggerjay concerns[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1296850503]. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 20:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Sure, let's look at that tag. The source is from 1963 ([[WP:AGE MATTERS|which does matter]]), the ISBN was wrong, and it didn't appear to be directly supporting the attached claim. I tagged it so someone with access to that specific edition of that source can verify it. The source is still in the article, just with more context. 
:::There are '''so many''' issues like this throughout the topic. 
:::As for press sources being the best, [[WP:PRIMARY]], [[WP:OR]], [[WP:SYNTH]], [[WP:EDITORIALIZING]], and [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]] are all important on Wikipedia. We have been over this. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 00:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::You went to tag that source on other articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296582720&oldid=1296582260]  after even after I showed you a direct citation to it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1291270229], in fact, its still tagged (similarly to what you do to the American Sociological Association source, which you keep tagging[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1296884937&oldid=1296884186] even after I showed you a direct link to it[https://es.scribd.com/document/754471181/villarreal-2010-stratification-by-skin-color-in-contemporary-mexico] and I explained how it is not a primary source). Going on more detail regarding the press sources, they are one of the best sources to document social phenomena, mainstream usage of terms aswell as social dynamics. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 01:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:I can't believe this is still going on more than FOUR MONTHS after we tried to resolve it! As you summarized, I jumped in and tried to help in mid-late February. We DID have a consensus on about Feb. 14. I believe it was me, Tiggerjay, and Pob3qu3 in favor of a certain version, and then Grayfell opposed. This continued with proposed edit after proposed edit for the next two-ish weeks, and on Feb. 27 Grayfell finally broke me and I checked out.
:I just scanned through Talk:Mexico again, and Pob3qu3 has continued for all these months to put in sincere work to make an  acceptable and positive contribution to the article. He had a few proposals with [[WP:SYNTH]] or [[WP:CALC]] problems that needed to be corrected, but I found that he was surprisingly willing to learn, adapt, and accommodate others' feedback. Grayfell has come at this differently. He's a more experienced editor. He has much stronger and more academic beliefs about race, ethnicity, and skin color, and the interplay between them. He clearly doesn't want any of Pob3qu3's or others' changes to go into these articles until he finds them absolutely flawless. And he has a great deal of energy for critiquing / criticizing others' proposed edits, while somehow not having energy to improve them. Specifically, in my perusal of the sordid [[Talk:Mexico]] page I find 52 comments by Grayfell. I classify these as follows: Complaint / criticism: 30; Requests that others make changes or find more sources: 12; Arguments or procedural discussion: 9; Proposed contributions: 1.
:While he expects Pob3qu3 to do all the work to make an edit that is perfect in Grayfell's eyes, Grayfell (from what little I've read) does plenty of edits in this same mildly contentious topic space, but without any collaboration. This feels very unfair. I have the strong sense that Grayfell is behaving like the older child with a sharp pin of criticism. Every time Pob3qu3 works hard to blow up a balloon and present it for acceptance, Grayfell trivially pops it with his pin and sends him back to start all over again, when instead he could've put in a little bit of effort and actually helped reshape the balloon into something more acceptable to him.
:I'm a little rusty on my WP policies. I really don't know what the solution is, except for Grayfell to complain less and help more. Maybe a TBAN on race for six months, with the exception that he be allowed to contribute proposed changes on a talk page, but not make other talk page comments. [[User:Davemc0|Davemc0]] ([[User talk:Davemc0|talk]]) 05:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::I looked at the issue following a report at a noticeboard. I tried to get the participants to focus on a single contested assertion so that the claim and its source could be evaluated. Despite reading several walls of text, I still have not seen a straightforward proposal with source. From what I saw, Grayfell was the only editor capable of understanding my request. It's pretty simple: what goes in an article has to be verifiable, so provide a source that directly supports the proposed text. In the hour that I spent trying to find a needle in the talk-page haystack, the very few concrete assertions I found were not supported by the provided source. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I agree with [[User:Davemc0|Davemc0]] proposal, don't know if from the topic of race as a whole as he has made various comments that clash with the content of the article of [[White people]] itself, like Devemc0 says, Grayfell has very academic/personal views of race as he states that a definition of White people does not exist and cannot ever exist[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1275587551&oldid=1275585092]  while the article of White people states that its generally agreed to be applied to people with predominant European ancestry (he has inserted this view into the article of White Mexicans [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1296247857]) but a ban (or block) at least from race/ethnicity topics related to Mexico for Grayfell is appropriate. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 06:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::This is another distraction from the fundamental point. Rather than post diffs of someone commenting in a wasteland talk page, please post a link to a straightforward proposed change with supporting source. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] three different users made proposals with sources (and other was ok with them as long as it was stated that was based on appeareance/physical traits) in the Mexico talk page and you didn't like any?. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 07:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Please post a link to a straightforward proposed change with supporting source. As requested before, please do not talk about anything else such as "three different users" or "didn't like any". Comments that are padded out with distractions add up to impenetrable walls of text. Focus on article content. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 08:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] you are overlooking that a little ago Grayfell acknowledged that the contested text (whose addition was one of the main reasons behind the original conflict, other being the removal Encyclopedia Brittanica) has always been obvious[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1295817184&oldid=1295013780], in other words, for months he was arguing, denouncing SYNTH/OR and demanding/rejecting multiple sources for a piece of text that Grayfell all along knew was obvious, no straightforward change with a supported source was ever going to convince him, in fact even after he admited that the text is obvious he is not convinced of its addition yet. Grayfell's tendency to accusse that a piece of text/source he dislikes is SYNTH/OR/unverified etc. infinitely no matter what one presents or does to back it up when he knows the text/source is actually ok is a common denominator on this conflict and likely on other edit conflicts he's gotten into on Wikipedia. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 18:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Pob3qu3 is badly misrepresenting my words and actions here. There is one point in particular that I want to address: At no point did I say that "a definition of White people does not exist and cannot ever exist". I said that no ''universal'' definition of "White people" can exist. There are many definitions of white people, but many of these sources don't bother defining it at all. Picking a source that mentions (often in passing) European ancestry, or arbitrarily light skin tone, and then using that to make simplistic claims about "White people" is textbook [[WP:SYNTH]]. That is one of the core issues here, and I'm not sure why having an "academic view of race" is supposed to be a bad thing.
::::::::As for the proposal, yet gain, the proposed source doesn't support the proposed wording. My 'acknowledgement' is just another attempt to explain this fundamental problem. In order to cite that source at all, the wording had to become so vague it was pointless filler language that stated the obvious. This is a waste of a source and a waste of the reader's time. Just like these talk pages, the articles do not need more pointless filler. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 19:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You are once again saying simultaneously that a source doesn't support the proposed text and that the proposed text is obvious, don't you see the contradiction there? also, even on instances on which I've copied text that outright appears on the article of Mexico (this is, without the proposed/disputed text on it) like in here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1296262430] you keep removing it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=next&oldid=1296262614]. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 19:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]], @[[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] isn't "overlooking" anything. He has a very clear request: post a link to a straightforward proposed change with a supporting source. Don't post anything else. Just that. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 07:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I think ANI is not really to discuss content to such extent or is it?. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 08:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Truly astonishing that you have been accused of filibustering, I can't imagine why. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 11:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*{{tq|Actually the first venue on which I tried to open this complaint was DRN, but turns out its limited to 2000 characters so it wasn't possible for me to make this case there. }} {{u|Pob3qu3}}, I think this should have triggered a moment of self-reflection. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Since a couple of weeks ago I realized that to bring this issue to a noticeboard was likely going to be needed but I was unsure on which would be the best one. Looking at the fact that even after being reported here Grayfell continued with the removing/tagging of sources I think this was the best course of action. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 03:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*::We are not going to have a discussion about content here but that does not rule out posting a link. The issue is that above I wrote "I still have not seen a straightforward proposal with source". Your options are to post a link, or to decline, or to state that no link is available because there is no straightforward proposal with source. Declining would indicate an unwillingness or inability to collaborate and that should have consequences because litigating an issue (what issue!?) for an extended period while being unable to follow simple advice would be highly disruptive. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::The thing is, when you say {{tq|"I still have not seen a straightforward proposal with source"}} you are being being highly subjective and holding an opinion that is not shared by most editors that participated in the discussion. Among the proposals in the talk page there were various about skin color stating what given percentage of Mexicans identified with light skin colors, and the source that states so is there too, like outright there (here are direct diffs so I don't have to copy-paste each here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1275639548&oldid=1275639541][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1286454439&oldid=1286445968]), if those still doesn't look like straighforward proposals to you I don't know what would, they look like an straightforward proposals to me and to the other editors that participated (except Grayfell). [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 17:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::The first proposal is above the signature found by searching for "05:22, 14 February 2025" at [[Talk:Mexico#Contentious]] ([[Special:PermanentLink/1297226044#Contentious|permalink]]). The discussion following the proposal shows a lot of doubt with people pointing out that the document was not a census, and that certain text in the proposal was not verified in the source. I was hoping for something more straightforward and which did not require an hour's work to decipher. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::The editor that showed doubt (Tiggerjay) accepted it later as long as it was stated that it was based on physical appeareance, here's the exchange I had with him about it on Mexico's talk page (I've linked it on here before[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1276492966&oldid=1276345240][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1276492966][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1276517329][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1276564941]. Also, that a proposal is straightforward and that another editor externs doubts for what seems (according to those diffs) his own conceptions of race/ethnicity shaped by personal experiences are different things, the proposal is very straightforward. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 18:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That ain't straightforward. 
:::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1292843264 Here is a comment I made] on [[Talk:Mexico]] on 29 May where I attempt to summarize Pob3qu3's updated proposal. I gave three reasons I don't think the proposal would work. As far as I can tell, Pob3qu3 hasn't really sufficiently addressed any of these, or just doesn't see them as valid. Or maybe they have addressed the issues and I just didn't understand what they were saying. I guess maybe Pob3qu3 misunderstood what I meant when I said I wanted more context from the source itself, because in follow-up proposals, they started copy/pasting the entire paragraph every time they made any minor adjustments to any sentence of the proposal. This seems pretty [[WP:POINT]]ed to me. The talk page was already very, very bloated. It's now about 177,000 bytes. It was less than 5,000 when this began. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 20:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::*{{tq|I guess maybe Pob3qu3 misunderstood what I meant when I said I wanted more context from the source...}} In that reply you kind of explained (albeit still vaguely) what you meant with the context thing, what I understood is that you wanted the source to be mentioned in context alongside other sources that mentioned things such as social inequalities, discrimination, skin color etc. to which I replied to you right away that such context (this is, mentions of social inequalities, skin color) is already present in the article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1292843264][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1292976350&oldid=1292949529] and you added it yourself (even the term European is present)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico&diff=1276820229&oldid=1276561103], in the comment that you linked in your last reply you are also once again saying that the contested text is obvious while at the same time saying that a source that exactly says  is needed, but even if I put the contested text aside (and even put Encyclopedia Brittanica aside) and add solely whats present in the race and Ethnicity section of Mexico[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1296262430] you keep reverting me[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=next&oldid=1296262614] claiming that its SYNTH. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 23:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*::{{U|Pob3qu3}}, you seem to have missed the point of Asilvering's post (either that or I have misinterpreted it). It is that you should have reflected on the fact that you are far too verbose. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 08:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::You have not misinterpreted the post. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

=== Proposal: TBAN Pob3qu3 from race topics ===
{{atop|status=Topic ban imposed|1=By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, {{noping|Pob3qu3}} is indefinitely [[WP:TBAN|topic banned]] from race topics, broadly construed. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)}}
Pob3qu3 has edited tendentiously at multiple race-related articles, talk pages, and noticeboard discussions. Issues include SYNTH, OR, bludgeoning, and failure to drop sticks, all of which have persisted after warnings. I propose the we '''indefinitely [[WP:TBAN|TBAN]] Pob3qu3 from race topics, broadly construed'''. Hopefully Pob3qu3 can absorb the feedback given so far, edit more collaboratively in other topic areas, and successfully appeal after a good long while has passed. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Maybe a ban from making TL;DR reports at ANI too? This seems to have wasted far too much of everybody's time without any merit. Just clicking on a few of the links complained about at the outset shows Grayfell making good removals of bad content. I mean, wtf does anybody think that completely irrelevant stuff about blood groups was about? --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 17:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*:'''Additional note:''' I have now skimmed Pob3qu3's contribution history going back a year and then got bored and jumped to the first page, from 2017. They are very close to being a continuous SPA on this topic, to the point where a TBAN would not be much different from a block. I do see a few edits which are about Mexico but not about race but it is a very small proportion of the total. They also have also edited the Spanish language Wikipedia on exactly the same topics. I recommend that a Spanish speaker look into those edits too and alert the administrators there, if necessary. [[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:'''Support''' Severe [[WP:IDHT]], plus the clearly retaliatory proposal below. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] can the proposal be considered retaliatory when its the user on which the report was filled on to begin with? I'm also not the original proposer. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 17:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I would not call the proposal retaliatory, since it's clearly what you've been hoping for since before this sub-section was opened. However, you ''were'' the original proposer. You've even ''supported as proposer''. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::[[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] I guess its a matter of semanthics? I mean Firefangledfeathers was the original proposer of this ban[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1296759368] and opened this section themselves. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 18:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Of particular note is FFF's explanatory comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Firefangledfeathers-20250622124700-Grayfell_selectivelly_removing_reliable_sources_from_several_articles here] and the (months ago) discussion at [[WP:NORN#White Mexicans and blood type]]. The [[WP:IDHT]] behaviour is chronic and not improving, as can be seen in this very thread. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Particularly convincing is the evidence from Firefangledfeathers, which shows intractable issues. It's a tricky and contentious area to be editing in, and no evidence they are able to do so in a manner that would avoid future disruption. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 18:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I haven't been able to get through to Pob3qu3, despite months of attempts. I'm sure someone else could have better chances. Until then, Pob3qu3 has exhausted good faith and has not demonstrated the ability to edit in a collaborative environment. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 20:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Constant [[WP:IDHT]] and bludgeoning can be seen both above and in the linked discussion. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The proposal is unsubstantiated and the accusations vague, a brief example could the two editors above mentioning the blood types discussion, with claims such as it being irrelevant to race/ethnicity topics even though many sources exist that claim that blood type diversity is related to ethnic diversity[https://www.nzblood.co.nz/become-a-donor/what-to-expect-when-donating-2/][https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34159602], in fact the source that was the main point of the blood types discussion states so[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5937518/] as soon as in the page 1 (which I pointed out with detail during the discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_Mexicans&diff=1274726410&oldid=1274594149] , I don't think that to want to include and follow what reliable sources say can or should be considered bludgeoning/hear etc. (I read the pages related to such policies and they do not elaborate on whether this includes defending a point that is backed by reliable sources or not, I think it is be important to clarify that). The proposer also states that all the things I'm being accused of have persisted even after warnings, thing that is unsibstantiated, actually I've been commended by other editors I've interacted with in those discussions[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1286601970][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1297106204]. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 20:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::I think that continued kvetching along these lines could well justify an even stronger sanction, either as disruptive behaviour or under [[WP:CIR]]. At best, this is an editor who doesn't realise that they are engaged in [[WP:SYNTH|original synthesis]] and who won't listen to anybody who tries to tell them. At worst, this is just POV pushing nonsense. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 23:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1297812402&oldid=1297811982] you claimed that "stuff about blood groups was irrelevant" to the topic of race and ethnicity, so I showed you multiple reliable sources that assert that blood group diversity is related to ethnic diversity, don't know how that could be SYNTH really. As I said on my previous oppose comment, I think that to clarify whether to defend content that is backed by multiple reliable sources constitutes bludgeoning/hear etc. or not is needed (for this one and for future cases). [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 23:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Wikipedia does not deal in objective truths, such as whether X is objectively backed by [[WP:RS]]es Y. Every editor believes they're right. That's why Wikipedia deals with consensus. Note that [[WP:BLUDGEON]] does not differentiate between whether someone is right or wrong, only when that person is inappropriately dominating the conversation. So yes, if you find yourself responsible for a disproportionate amount of posts in a discussion, backing off is the appropriate response. After all, [[WP:YANI|if you're right, someone else will pick up the slack]]. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 01:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|Wikipedia does not deal in objective truths, such as whether X is objectively backed by [[WP:RS]]es Y. Every editor believes they're right. That's why Wikipedia deals with consensus...}} This is not entirely true, the lede of [[WP:NPOV]] states that ''all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic must be represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias'' and goes as far as to say that such principle cannot be superseded by editor consensus (meaning that to supress as much well sourced content as is being supressed on this case is against this policy). [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 01:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::You've missed the point. What constitutes "significant views", "reliable sources", etc., are all editor ''opinions'' since, as far as I know, humans lack an organ that senses objective truth. And everyone thinks their opinion is right. I hope you can understand this, because if someone can't accept that they might be wrong in their interpretation of facts, they might not be a good fit for the encyclopedia. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 02:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|What constitutes "significant views", "reliable sources", etc., are all editor ''opinions'' since, as far as I know, humans lack an organ that senses objective truth.}} Wikipedia does have various policies designed to determine which sources belong in an article and which ones don't (Governmental sources, books, and peer reviewed sources being the preffered ones), and in case of more serius disagreement regarding the quality of other sources noticeboards such as Third Opinion and Dispute Resolution exist, in fact back then, I told Grayfell to take the disagreement about the Blood types source to "Third Opinion" if he was so convinced that it didn't belong on the article but he didn't[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1274586331], Encyclopedia Brittanica is another source that could be taken to such noticeboards. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 03:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|q=y|Wikipedia does have various policies...}} yes, which are all interpreted by humans who cannot determine objective truth. I tried to explain to you, but at this point, you're [[WP:IDHT|not hearing]] me. I'll take my own advice; I trust the community will tell me if they believe bludgeoning does not apply when an editor believes they're right. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I feel safe in asserting that your interpretation is correct, and it's still bludgeoning, even when one is Righting Great Wrongs. Especially given the utter determination to not hear or understand what anyone is saying to them. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 19:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I appreciate your words, but then what would be a proper way to "Right the Wrongs" that couldn't be considered bludgeoning? As I said above maybe noticeboards such as Dispute Resolution, though in cases such as the tagging of sources shown in the diffs at the start of my report I honestly didn't thought specialized venues like those were going to be necessary. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 02:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' IDHT, unconstructive editing, etc plus a short block for bludgeoning. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 08:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Tendentious, bad-faith timewasting has gone on long enough. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 14:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Tendentious, bad-faith timewasting indeed. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 14:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

=== Proposal: 6 month TBAN for Grayfell from race topics ===
{{atop|status=Not imposed|1=Clear consensus against this proposal. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)}}
Retaking [[User:Davemc0|Davemc0]]'s proposal[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1297106204] Grayfell has shown to be deeply uncollaborative on discussions and has refused to work with other editors on articles related to this topic, additionally he has a tendency to remove reliable sources selectivelly with misleading edit summaries (see diffs on opening report) and ignores talk page discussions on which he is asked to explain such edits, the fact that he has continued doing so[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1296885250&oldid=1295006093] after being reported to ANI (and repeating edits for which he was reported for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1296891506]) is a good example of his problematic behavior and makes clear why such restriction is needed. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 16:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''I support as nominator''' as I told Davemc0 before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1297117313], in fact now I'm more convinced that such sanction is needed for Grayfell. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 17:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', obviously. Entirely without merit. Just glancing at a few of the diffs shows good removals of bad content. Boomerang worthy. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 17:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:'''Oppose''' Grayfell's conduct appears, from evidence presented in this thread, to be well within Wikipedia's norms. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Grayfell is a very careful editor, who works carefully and collegially, well within the norms and policies for this project, and this despite working in a contentious area. This proposal appears to be without merit. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 17:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::I know you are free to "vote" however you want but, how is for example tagging a source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1291123202] that describes Mexicans from the western regions of Mexico as being very European looking [https://books.google.com.mx/books?hl=es&id=XPl8c4XINgoC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=well+built] because according to Grayfell it doesn't mention the term "White" well within Wikipedia's norms?. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 17:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]], please refrain from directly replying to individual participants here. You've already said your piece many times above. If you'd like to make a general comment about these two tban proposals, feel free to open a new subsection below for general discussion of the proposal. (But please, just ''one'' comment there, too.) -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::While not the norm, I've seen that to have some discussion below votes is not that rare, specially in atypical cases, which I think this one is. Through this entire discussion it has been as if nobody wanted to talk about Grayfell edits, which I'm convinced evidently go against Wikipedia's guidelines and its confusing really. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 18:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Another atypical thing I just noticed was that on this diff here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1297815866&oldid=1297815584] the editor Sirfurboy removed a comment by [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]], and on a case that is not even this one, [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy]] what happened there?. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 18:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::It was some weird edit conflict, now fixed. I suspect I must have somehow been looking at a specific rendition of the page when I edited, as I got no warning. Nothing to see here though. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 19:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Grayfell means well, but is so overly careful with other people's proposed changes in these topics as to be obstructionist. As I see interpret it, his chronic unwillingness to contribute to any proposed change or help move any proposal toward consensus is a strong negative for the project. If he were willing to help more and criticize less, we definitely would not be where we are and these articles would be in a much better state. [[User:Davemc0|Davemc0]] ([[User talk:Davemc0|talk]]) 20:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Obviously petty and retaliatory, and also meritless. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 14:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' - obviously retaliatory.
:[[User:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: blue; color:white; padding:3px">'''''MiasmaEternal'''''</span>]][[User_talk:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: black; color: white; padding:3px">☎</span>]] 22:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', with the pushing of this proposal and the misrepresentation of the evidence being a point in favor of the Pob3qu3 TBAN proposal above. I wouldn't describe Grayfell's conduct as being perfect. In particular, I'd counsel him to respond about half as often with about half as many words. That said, his pursuit of policy compliance has been commendable, and few of us could act perfectly when confronted with tendentious editing at P's level. G has participated in talk page discussion, the prior ANI discussion about P (which also noted misrepresentation problems), the NORN discussion, and the abusive SPI P filed against G and others in the dispute. Through that lens, there has been a months-long community failure to properly address problematic content and conduct, and it would be shameful to sanction G for sticking in the trenches and getting a little messy. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 12:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

===Arbitrary break===
I think this case has highlighted various moot points in Wikipedia's procedings that may be worth looking into with attention, such as the direct contradiction that exists between [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:BLUDGEON]]. [[WP:NPOV]], which is a core policy on the site, states that ''all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic must be represented'' which is why I filled this case for, as if its looked at the diffs at the start of the case, much content backed by reliable sources is being removed, however because I've been wanting to uphold the principles of this policy Im being accused (with much seriousness) of bludgeoning and what not by multiple editors. I think its necessary that such policy contradictions are cleared out to prevent scenarios like the one seen on this case from happening (this surely isn't the first time it happens), as they ultimately have a negative impact on the project as the quality and variety of content of the articles diminishes and dedicated editors are driven away. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 17:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:Everybody here has looked at at least some of the diffs. They do not agree with your characterisation of them. They see the whole report as meritless because it is. Now you want the rules changed to make it easier for you to disrupt Wikipedia? Or maybe you just want to bog us down in pointless metadiscussion? Irrespective of whether this is sincere or done in bad faith, this can't go on. Clearly, there is no prospect of making you understand this if you do not already.
:I worry that, if only topic banned from race, then the disruption may spread into other areas. I think we need a reasonable length block here with the understanding that any further disruption, whether in the form of bogus reports, insertion of OR or SYNTH, or anything else, would lead to an indef. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::More than wanting rules changed, I want there to be clarification on the rules that currently exist, especially relevant to this case is the part on [[WP:NPOV]] that states that such policy supercedes user consensus, because that "its me vs other editors" is all that has been used against me on here. It is also important to clarify it because as its been used on here, any piece of information on Wikipedia, (even official governmental sources) can be removed if one or more editors decide so, because they can accuse the editor defending the source of bludgeoning/hear. Replying to your note[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1297973069&oldid=1297971951] here, to not make the discussion lenghtier above, besides race and ethnicity on my edits I have updated nearly the totallity of the information on multiple articles related to Mexico[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Mexico&diff=1246440455&oldid=1240934072][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico&diff=1255847822&oldid=1247813313][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1237467693&oldid=1233821007] (over 90% of the edits in the timelapses on those diffs are mine), as much of it was still using sources from 2010. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 19:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::When you find that a very large number of people are forming an agreement that your behavior is disruptive, and no one is saying "Well actually I agree with Pob3qu3's interpretation of policy is right", you should perhaps consider the possibility that the way you're behaving is disruptive (possibly because your interpretation of policy is way out of line with the broader consensus, or possibly for other reasons). Then you should perhaps reflect on what you need to change about your behavior (and possibly your interpretations) to bring yourself into line with the standards that other people expect. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 01:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{+1}} to the IP. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 01:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Here on the case with the exception of Davemc0 most people are disagreeing with me (some rather energetically), however until before opening this case most editors active on this topic (cue the discussion in the article of Mexico) agreed with me, or at least we were discussing collaborativelly and seemed to have reached a consensus, during this time Grayfell was the only one actively opposing changes. Having editors who I have never seen before suddenly against me and commenting as if they have been in conflict/arguing with me on talk pages for months comes as a surprise (their participation would have been appreciated in those at the time), there's been no time to, as you say "reflect." [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 02:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::[[User talk:Pob3qu3#Blanket Reply]] was February. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::While that reads as something negative, Tiggerjay continued discussing (and addressed me directly) in the talk page of Mexico after that, his last reply on the matter was this one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1276564941&oldid=1276517329]. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 03:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::This thread was started by you, 9 days ago; the basic pattern of almost everyone disagreeing with you has been uniform since the beginning. That's ample time. Even the hour between your response at 02:00 and 03:02 UTC would have been enough to do some reflection, but all you came up with is reflexive defensiveness. It is probably too late at this point to prevent yourself from being topic-banned (an outcome I think is very reasonable under the circumstances), but if you wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia in some other topics then you should still endeavor to learn something from this and improve so that you don't repeat the same mistakes elsewhere. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 11:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::There's been important irregularities on this time though, for example Firefangledfeathers first comment being calling for me to be banned[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1296759368] to then open the request themselves[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1297792056] rather than waiting for an uninvolved editor to do so, which in practice invalidated my posteroir TBAN proposal for Grayfell (which I didn't open earlier because I was following the aforementioned principle of waiting for an uninvolved editor to propose it) as it was seen as retaliatory even though the focal point of when opening this case was Grayfell behavior. There's also the previously mentioned question of whether [[WP:NPOV]] supercedes user consensus or not, if it does then theres no causative for the ban, as all I've been doing the last months is trying to keep material, some of it being official governmental sources, from being removed of articles through different talk page discussions (and at the time of the discussions there was no opposition from multiple editors at all, the multiple editors opposing me started appearing here).
:::::::::{{tq|q=y|Even the hour between your response at 02:00 and 03:02 UTC would have been enough to do some reflection}} All that happened on that hour was Asilvering linking to a talk page discussion of mine, what was I supposed to say?. [[User:Pob3qu3|Pob3qu3]] ([[User talk:Pob3qu3|talk]]) 16:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I strongly encourage you to consider the first [[Law of holes]]. You've made your case. If people are going to agree with you, they'll do so. It seems that the people who don't only become more firm in their opinions as you respond more. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 16:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::To be fair, if somebody invalidated my posterior I wouldn't stop digging until I reached Australia.{{;)}} [[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

== Legal threat at [[Talk:Amber Atherton]] ==

By [[User:Discussthis]] at [[Special:Diff/1294635970]], "Article subject has been legally warned already against making false claims and editors may want to heed warning". I can't block myself because I'm involved. [[User:Rusalkii|<span style="color:#1C7E85"><b>Rusalkii</b></span>]] ([[User talk:Rusalkii|talk]]) 05:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::{{U|Rusalkii}}, why in the world would you block yourself??? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 08:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::<small>Undisclosed COI, didn't you read the talk page?</small>
:::(I assume this was a joke but just for clarity, because I did spend a few seconds trying to figure out an interpretation that made sense, I did not block myself or anyone else involved and do not have a COI here.) [[User:Rusalkii|<span style="color:#1C7E85"><b>Rusalkii</b></span>]] ([[User talk:Rusalkii|talk]]) 17:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::<small>It's EEng, if it's ''not'' plausibly a joke, that's when you've got to worry. It got a groan out of me too. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)</small>
:I can't find an edit on this project where Discussthis issues an actual legal warning, at least there is nothing posted to a User talk page. I know I have a different standard for LT than other admins but I'm not sure this deserves a block. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::The meaning of the phrase "legally warned" here is not clear. It may just possibly be intended to mean "warned under Wikipedia rules" rather than a reference to external laws or legal proceedings. I agree that it is necessary for Discussthis to clarify the meaning. However, I am frankly more troubled that 100% of Discussthis's edits over 18 months on Wikipedia are focused on this one article, invariably taking a negative view of the article subject and anyone who agrees with her.  [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 08:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Article subject has been legally warned already against making false claims and editors may want to heed warning.}}
:::That sounds like a legal threat to me. It would also be good to know what connection @[[User:Discussthis|Discussthis]] has to subject of the article, since they know that Atherton has been legally warned. It is also a [[WP:SPA]] by definition. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<small><span style="background:#000;color:#FFF;"><em><b>TurboSuperA+</b></em></span></small>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<sub>(connect)</sub>]] 10:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreed. @[[User:Discussthis|Discussthis]] please clarify your connection to the article's subject. <span class="nowrap" style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Franklin Gothic Medium;background:linear-gradient(to right,#fd9f88,#79382c,#503e60);padding:0 4px;">[[User talk:Gommeh|»]]&nbsp;[[User:Gommeh|<span class="nowrap" style="color:#fbffff;">Gommeh&nbsp;(he/him)</span>]]</span> 13:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I've directly asked them for comment on their talk page. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 07:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::No reply yet, but that's not particularly surprising given their edit history. @[[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]], I share your concerns and I'm really struggling to imagine a good-faith motivation here. It looks like a vendetta. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Discussthis|Discussthis]] hasn't edited since the 19th, so I have significant doubts over whether they will even respond to this discussion. And I agree, it does look like they have some type of vendetta. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:35% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Gommeh|🎮]]</span> 01:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
*I've added the user's talk page to my watchlist.  If I would've seen this 9 days ago, I'd have been happy to hit the block button myself.  But since it's stale now and the user only seems to edit once every 6 months, I'm going to just monitor.  But the combination of a semi-legal threat, single purpose account, pure attacks to trash a biography of a living person...I don't think this user has any encyclopedia-building interests and is set out on a personal vendetta.  They claim that other users have a conflict of interest with the article subject, but I am seriously wondering what Discussthis's connection to the article subject is.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 15:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:TParis|TParis]], I think if your only hesitation is that it's stale, you should go ahead and set the block. It's not like they've been editing for the past nine days and this incident is in the past. Just my 2c. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm puzzled by 9 days being "stale" in this context. Seems live to me. I'm equally puzzled by the earlier doubts on whether [[WP:NLT]] applies. "legally warned" + "editors may want to heed warning" is precisely the intended chilling effect that NLT is aimed at addressing. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 08:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

== 78.81.123.235 ==


*{{userlinks|78.81.123.235}}

This IP was previously blocked for two weeks due to persistent violations of [[WP:RUSUKR]] after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#78.81.123.235 this] ANI report (they also previously edited under a different IP address which was also blocked for the same reason). I had to give them another [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.81.123.235#June_2025 warning] on 15 June because they again made edits related to the topic. They assured me again that they would not make any further edits related to the topic. Despite this, they have continued to make edits that are clearly violations of the restriction. See for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vranyo&diff=prev&oldid=1296387201 this] edit on 19 June where they directly reference the war. Another editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.81.123.235#Two_issues told] them about the restriction after this edit and just now they made another [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_occupation_of_Crimea&curid=71944314&diff=1297151650&oldid=1290915467 edit] to [[Russian occupation of Crimea]] that is a blatant violation. See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Rutte&diff=prev&oldid=1297029261 this] edit for example. I have not taken a look at their other recent edits so there might be more. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 12:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:My last edit to [[Russian occupation of Crimea]] is to clarify the legal case [[Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2017)]] and don't reference the war at all. Or, later one, clarify the reference in the same article. It's important for readers. I assure of my adherence to CTOP rules at Wikipedia. And would self-revert if suggested. Thank you [[Special:Contributions/78.81.123.235|78.81.123.235]] ([[User talk:78.81.123.235|talk]]) 12:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::You should self-revert. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 13:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::* '''Done''' at best of my ability. Thank you
:::[[Special:Contributions/78.81.123.235|78.81.123.235]] ([[User talk:78.81.123.235|talk]]) 13:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::You did not fully self-revert.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_occupation_of_Crimea&diff=1297157547&oldid=1290915467] You also did not explain the rationale for the other edits that violated the restriction, for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Rutte&diff=prev&oldid=1297029261 this] edit from yesterday where you changed {{tq|war with Ukraine}} to {{tq|war against Ukraine}}. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 14:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::And like before, more POV edits. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zvenigora&diff=prev&oldid=1297173662 Here] you created a piped link for no good reason. Since the IP is still continuing to make edits and has not provided any real assurance that they will stop making edits that violate the restriction (they have done this multiple times before and continued to make such edits), I see no other option than a much longer block this time. I have lost count of how many times they've said they would stop making edits related to the topic only to continue making edits related to the topic. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 15:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_international_presidential_trips_made_by_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy&diff=prev&oldid=1297217604 Another] violation just now. This is despite the ANI report. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 22:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Even more [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Tribunal_for_the_Crime_of_Aggression_against_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1297452455 violations] now. This is very clearly about the war. Seriously, it does not get any more blatant than this. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 07:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't understand why 78.81.123.235 doesn't create a named account - for increased anonymity and safety as well as quite likely being able to achieve extended-confirmed status reasonably quickly on topics ''unrelated'' to WP:RUSUKR, broadly construed. On the particular article [[Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine]], which is why I noticed this AN/I entry, I'd personally prefer for 78.81.123.235's edits to not be self-reverted, because they only needed moderate editing and overall are quite useful.{{pb}}@User 78.81.123.235: the Wikipedian community is patient, but not infinitely patient. While the RUSUKR topic is indeed an important one, it's also one that is difficult for the community to manage in terms of edits, so trying to make exceptions in your particular case would be difficult. You've been editing non-anonymously (revealing your IP number) for over 30 days and your edit count looks like it's in the several 100s. If you create a named account, it will be in your personal interest in terms of security, you'll learn a lot of interesting things by editing topics outside of the RUSUKR areas, and it looks like it shouldn't be difficult for you to do 500 non-trivial edits within a month.{{pb}}It looks like you've misunderstood several requests to stop editing in the RUSUKR area broadly construed, so you'd have to make an exceptional effort now to convince others not to block you. You really must read [[WP:BROADLY]]. [[User:Boud|Boud]] ([[User talk:Boud|talk]]) 12:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, I have re-read, WP:BROADLY. Sorry again for not meeting the community trust. As to the rational of war 'against' vs. 'with', for me, non-native speaker, it seems obviously as an grammatical error: 'with' could be understood 'pro', while 'against' is clearly 'contra'. <br>Really sorry, as jurisprudencial articles are non-exempt from CTOP. Now, it's clear after your thoughtful briefing. [[Special:Contributions/78.81.123.235|78.81.123.235]] ([[User talk:78.81.123.235|talk]]) 14:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::With this editing [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_international_presidential_trips_made_by_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy&diff=prev&oldid=1297217604]], I was experimenting with new wiki orthography, badly, and was to delete it, but after, it was already reverted. [[Special:Contributions/78.81.123.235|78.81.123.235]] ([[User talk:78.81.123.235|talk]]) 14:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sorry for late response. As [[Olexandr Dovzhenko]] and [[Alexander Dovzhenko]] spelling are different in the initial letter, my understanding is that spelling convention allows to chose according to the context which it is used. The articles edited were from the [[List of Ukrainian films]], and spelling with initial O seems more appropriate. Thank you [[Special:Contributions/78.81.123.235|78.81.123.235]] ([[User talk:78.81.123.235|talk]]) 14:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::When it comes to transliteration both versions of the name are odd for using the letter "x" instead of "ks". I'd expect "Oleksandr" or "Aleksandr" (without an "e" between "dr" at the end). [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 15:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:A quick spot-check of [[Special:Contributions/78.81.123.235|contribs]] seems to indicate [[User:78.81.123.235|78.81.123.235]] has been making uncontroversial edits to mainspace since this discussion. Anyone opposed to this being closed? —[[User:TonySt|<span style="border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;font-weight:bold;background:linear-gradient(45deg,#96C, #6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">tony</span>]] 03:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

== User:2409:40F3:100F:67FE:8000:0:0:0 submitting drafts that I created that aren't ready ==
*{{IPlinks|2409:40F3:100F:67FE:8000:0:0:0}}
The IP range has been previously blocked for vandalism. They are also vandalising my Talk page, diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B&diff=prev&oldid=1297448790] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B&diff=prev&oldid=1297448916] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B&diff=prev&oldid=1297449070]. As to why this is happening, I could have brought this on myself by looking at recent changes and reverting bad edits and marking userpages for speedy deletion under U5 and G11. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<small><span style="background:#000;color:#FFF;"><em><b>TurboSuperA+</b></em></span></small>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<sub>(connect)</sub>]] 07:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:If your edits were justifiable then you did not bring this on yourself. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::I know, it was a [[tongue-in-cheek]] remark. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<small><span style="background:#000;color:#FFF;"><em><b>TurboSuperA+</b></em></span></small>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<sub>(connect)</sub>]] 09:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Anyway, it looks like they've wandered off. If they resume, report to [[WP:AIV]] and they'll get blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 18:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I thought as much, but I've seen plenty of people worry about things that I would simply laugh off. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 22:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

== oktayey and gender identity issues (again) ==

{{Userlinks|User=Oktayey}}

admittedly, i considered taking this another venue, but ani seems more fitting, as this isn't his first time causing such problems. but i'll ignore that for now, and start with what's actually going on at this moment

oktayey has been engaged in [[Talk:Kris (Deltarune)#source for Kris being non-binary?|a discussion in talk:kris (deltarune)]] that's been all kiinds of unproductive, of which the biggest problems are

* getting "sex" and "gender" mixed up ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1297513018 diff]). definitely pretty small, though the distinction is pretty important in the context of discussion, and i believe someone should know that if they intend on discussing it. my mentions of them being distinct ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1297517204 diff]) seem to have gone unheard, but i'm kind of willing to not count this one, partially due to the relative inconsequentiality, but mostly due to my generally unclear wording. though if it ''is'' intentional, it can pretty easily be seen as malicious
* spending most of the discussion wasting other editors' time by arguing towards the possibility of there being no solid evidence of kris being non-binary (diff probably not needed as it's the meat of most of the discussion, but i guess [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1297519789 this one] will do as a good start). his argument being... that it might not be a literal narrative?

:* ignoring sources and in-universe evidence to contrary for this argument, with arguments that boil down to "what if no?", which really doesn't work for productive discussion (again, diff probably not needed, as it's most of the discussion)

* arguing that no reliable sources existed to prove the claim ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1296877053 diff]), despite the claim being reliably cited, and ignoring that fact later on
* as a variation of the first one, getting "non-binary" and "androgynous" mixed up ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1296850110 diff]). this one i can say with a larger amount of certainty is likely intentional, as it was preceded by cukie and some "consarn" guy clarifying that they're different, albeit to other people at first, so it might've been a case of him not reading too much into it
* answering to concerns about his behavior in the discussion by... accusing cukie and i of socking ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1297543523 diff])!? i don't even act like cukie, this one just confuses me. why would i learn brazilian portuguese (whatever a brazil is) for the purposes of socking? he did provide a reasoning later on ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1297547877 diff]), but it definitely seems flimsy, like he thought of it after the fact. <small>plus, if he was right and it was an accident, where i meant to answer with my good hand account, i don't think i'd be writing in lowercase like in the one i use for vandalism and bludgeoning</small>

just from this one discussion, which already had multiple other people with their own arguments (and problems), his part in it came out as showing severe [[Wikipedia:CIR|cir]] and [[Wikipedia:Idht|idht]] issues. now i'm no longer ignoring the past, as this '''''really''''' ain't his first rodeo. he's been through this at least thrice ([[User talk:Oktayey#March 2023|first discussion]], [[User talk:Oktayey#Your behavior around Gays Against Groomers|second discussion]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1126#More eyes at Talk:Gays Against Groomers please, flood of SPAs of late|ani thread that proceeded the second discussion]], [[User talk:Oktayey#Blugdeon|third discussion]]), of which at least one case i might be missing eventually resulted in a tban from the topic of gender issues ([[User talk:Oktayey#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban|notice]]), and it doesn't seem like he's learned much from those, despite being here for longer than me

i don't know if a block would be excessive, as he has shown himself to be a little less unproductive in other areas, but i do think some measures might be needed. maybe a longer (or indefinite) tban on gender and lgbt+ matters (extremely broadly construed), a temporary block, or even just cutting the knot and indeffing. i won't outright make it a vote for any action, but i do think the issue's gotten out of hand pretty long ago, so i'm in favor of at least doing ''something'' '''[[user:consarn|<span style="color:#338665">consarn</span>]] <sub>[[user talk:consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(grave)</span>]] [[special:contributions/consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(obituary)</span>]]</sub>''' 23:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:This is a very confusing report and hard to follow as it goes off on several tangents. It's a stream of consciousness report. 
:Can you state in just two sentences, what policies were violated and produce diffs of them? Generally, we don't police talk pages to make sure they have the right "tone" unless there are clear policy violations. Editors come to edit and talk on the project with different levels of education, different life experiences, different cultural backgrounds, it's not uncommon that an editor could put forward a point of view that you disagree with or doesn't align with your own. That's why we have talk pages, in order to hash out consensus regarding our articles, but not to be a forum to chit chat on topics of interests. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::for the request, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1297543523 bludgeoning] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1297519789 stonewalling], showing a disruptive streak with and seemingly limited understanding of gender identity issues ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1297513018 on gender], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1296850110 on being nb])", or just "nothere in this specific area"
::for the rest, i'll admit that his tone is pretty much the one thing i can say with full certainty isn't a problem. just what that tone is being used for, which is the aforementioned disruption '''[[user:consarn|<span style="color:#338665">consarn</span>]] <sub>[[user talk:consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(grave)</span>]] [[special:contributions/consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(obituary)</span>]]</sub>''' 02:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::as for the diffs, do you mean of past instances? the current ones were already provided '''[[user:consarn|<span style="color:#338665">consarn</span>]] <sub>[[user talk:consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(grave)</span>]] [[special:contributions/consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(obituary)</span>]]</sub>''' 02:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::By "diff" Liz means this: [[WP:DIFF]]. The request is not saying you didn't provide any, it's a request to make a clear, focused report that describes the problem succinctly with the most straightforward evidence for it. (I haven't looked through your initial post, so I don't have a personal opinion about this request, I'm just translating.) [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 11:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::i recommend looking, because the diffs provided there were even labeled as such '''[[user:consarn|<span style="color:#338665">consarn</span>]] <sub>[[user talk:consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(grave)</span>]] [[special:contributions/consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(obituary)</span>]]</sub>''' 12:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::I left a comment in this discussion only because you said you didn't understand something Liz wrote, to help clarify what she wants; I am not going to involve myself beyond that. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 12:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::what actually confuses me about liz asking for diffs is that i already provided them. i don't think there's really any way to miss them beyond a plugin that un-highlights links, or not having read the report at all (which i really hope isn't the case)
:::::::if you haven't read my report or the subsequent reply to liz, then i don't think you should've been involved at all '''[[user:consarn|<span style="color:#338665">consarn</span>]] <sub>[[user talk:consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(grave)</span>]] [[special:contributions/consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(obituary)</span>]]</sub>''' 12:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Please go re-read my first message in this thread; it contains all the clarification you should need. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 12:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::there, i edited the version that has been shortened to the point of being nearly meaningless to include the same diffs from the initial one, if that's not enough, i really don't know what either of you want '''[[user:consarn|<span style="color:#338665">consarn</span>]] <sub>[[user talk:consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(grave)</span>]] [[special:contributions/consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(obituary)</span>]]</sub>''' 13:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:on this note, i should probably have pinged @[[User:Cukie Gherkin|Cukie Gherkin]] before, since she's involved in the discussion that led to this '''[[user:consarn|<span style="color:#338665">consarn</span>]] <sub>[[user talk:consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(grave)</span>]] [[special:contributions/consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(obituary)</span>]]</sub>''' 12:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:Consider a boomerang (or just a 'bang everyone's heads together and suggest they move on"...which is my next move on this topic); Based on @[[User:Consarn|Consarn]] and @[[User:Cukie Gherkin|Cukie Gherkin]]'s refusal to listen and bludgeoning in the talk page.  Trying to have a conversation on the content there and we're treated to a stream of multiple replies going over and over the same points without any hint of listening or compromise.    I've tried to offer a compromise, and they're reply shows they're clearly not interested in even reading such an idea [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1297638346]
:The way they are double-teaming makes @[[User:Oktayey|Oktayey]]'s question about socking entirely reasonable;  although admittedly not helpful to the conversation. For example, in this diff, Cukie answers for Consarn.  Moreover they not only totally misrepresent my replies (I said nothing about NPOV...)  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1297637323]; they mis-represent the facts of the matter (the article itself says that there is in fact some debate over this), and closes with a stonewall 'no point discussing this further'.
:Infuriating. [[User talk:JeffUK|Jeff<span style="border-style:dashed;border-color:blue; border-width:1px">'''UK'''</span>]] 14:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::I did not misrepresent your messages, I said that what you wanted was a violation of [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Also, the author cited as having said there was a debate over them being non-binary is a nonsense point when there's also debate over whether the character [[Bridget (Guilty Gear)|Bridget]] is trans, despite the creator affirming her to be so. There is debate over climate change, but we do not acknowledge that the debate has merit. Who are the ones debating this? Are any of the people arguing against Kris being non-binary reliable sources? If you can't provide an affirmative answer to a question of their gender, then why are you asking for this false balance?
::The suggestion that I am not listening to what you are saying is also patently silly. I have listened to everything you said. That I did listen to you is the reason why I disagree with what you're saying. If you do not provide a policy or guideline-based reason to change the article, what am I meant to compromise on? - [[User:Cukie Gherkin|Cukie Gherkin]] ([[User talk:Cukie Gherkin|talk]]) 14:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::<small>my pc bluescreened twice while writing this, enjoy my third draft lmao</small>
::it's less that we're "teaming up" and more that we "agree". we have the same arguments to make, so we'll make the same arguments, regardless of who a reply is directed at. if i disagreed with cukie on something, you can bet your 5 kromer i'd have an equally long discussion with her, and maybe only bet 2 kromer that someone else would be in my current position of agreeing with her and making a lot of the same arguments
::similarly, it's less that we haven't bothered to listen, and more that we have, we weighed it against the sources and policies on how to handle them, and we think you're ultimately wrong
::however, one thing that definitely bothers me is that multiple unrelated people have proven themselves willing to have the same conversation multiple times, as opposed to just adding to the ongoing ones. i could use this as grounds to wonder if you and the others in that thread are all socks as a joke, but unlike oktayey, who spent the most time wasting our time, you actually proved that you checked (at least some of) the sources in the article, so i actually think that chance is zero to none
::but let's reiterate and add on the points i've made anyway~
::*arguments against the in-game evidence boiled down to theorizing if it might have been...
::**a figurative representation of kris's indeterminate gender (for which no solid evidence was presented beyond the possibility of it)
::**obscuring kris's actual gender (for which no reason was given towards why people familiar enough with kris would be doing that, or who they'd be hiding it from, since pretty much everyone knows kris)
:::in both cases, the only real response was stonewalling by repeating the same questions, hence my previous description of them as boiling down to "what if no?"
::*arguments against devs boiled down to nitpicking. sources being weak, screenshots being blurry and cropped, and so on, but nothing beyond that. more sources obviously related to the devs saying the things have thus far gone unaddressed
::*arguments towards sources that doubted the claim were, as cukie said just now, going to be violations of wp:falsebalance even if they were correct. by giving equal weight to an overwhelming minority, we'd effectively toss most of our sources under the bus for no good reason. even then, the two sources that doubt it say that kris being nb would add up, so they're not even actually usable as proof that that's not the case
::<small>i could swear this thread was about oktayey before...</small> '''[[user:consarn|<span style="color:#338665">consarn</span>]] <sub>[[user talk:consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(grave)</span>]] [[special:contributions/consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(obituary)</span>]]</sub>''' 16:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::a little late, but i noticed one point i forgot in the first draft
:::the npov argument is fair. you never mentioned it. however, that doesn't mean it wasn't still an issue there wouldn't be concerns about, as it was still a dispute partially about what sources said, so i don't really think the mention was unwarranted
:::that's... kind of it, really '''[[user:consarn|<span style="color:#338665">consarn</span>]] <sub>[[user talk:consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(grave)</span>]] [[special:contributions/consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(obituary)</span>]]</sub>''' 18:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*What I was asking for was examples of policy violations and then a diff to illustrate this charge. Except for the question of whether or not two editors were the same person, the diffs I looked at were just incidents of an editor expressing an opinion which is not a policy violation. Because some of your report is a little vague and abstract and covers a lot of ground, I was hoping you could just boil it down to a list of a) violation + b) diff of that violation. Because that is what ANI is for, to address conduct concerns, not differences of opinion.
:But since it seems like my comments aren't helping make this discussion get any clearer, I'll step back and let others take a crack at providing their advice. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::As an involved editor, I think that an ANI may have been a little hasty, though I cannot deny that I also found concerns over the user's repeated behavior from [[Gays Against Groomers]] (namely, arguing that LGBT sources have a bias that affects their reliability) and their (currently inactive) TBan on topics related to gender identity. - [[User:Cukie Gherkin|Cukie Gherkin]] ([[User talk:Cukie Gherkin|talk]]) 07:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::the concerns i addressed about oktayey were of conduct (that is, bias against certain sources over alleged editorial slants and repeated disruption over it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kris_(Deltarune)&diff=prev&oldid=1296883633 diff i believe represents both]), and happened to take the shape of a difference of opinion (that certain claims ''were'' reliably enough sourced for their inclusion, and that there wasn't enough dispute around said claims from rses to justify removing them). does that count? '''[[user:consarn|<span style="color:#338665">consarn</span>]] <sub>[[user talk:consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(grave)</span>]] [[special:contributions/consarn|<span style="color:#439272">(obituary)</span>]]</sub>''' 12:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*I vaguely recalled the name from the GaG dispute, and went through their contributions to see if this was a reoccurring thing; I ended up finding [[Talk:PragerU/Archive_8|this]] incident (look up their name on the page if you can; I’m not hunting down the exact diff). Basically it’s just them saying an LGBT+ source ([[Washington Blade]]) is biased seemingly for no reason other than being LGBT+ focused. While minor, it shows that they consistently treat sources as unreliable or biased just because they are LGBTQ-centric. This is… unfortunate. I don’t think a block is appropriate because the vast majority of their edits seem fine or at least uncontroversial, but a ''broad'' topic ban from LGBTQ subjects, particularly controversies, is probably in order. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 06:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

== Disruptive editing and complete disregard for Wikipedia policy ==

I was referred here from AIV where I was told this was a more appropriate forum.

* {{Userlinks|Onemillionthtree}}

This user has a several month history (most of the lifespan of the account) of persistent edit warring, disruptive editing, and stubbornness as evidenced on their Talk page. This has already resulted in a previous 3 week block in May for edit warring and disruptive editing.

Today, I noticed they tried to "move" the page [[Extraterrestrial UFO hypothesis]] to [[Extraterrestrial hypothesis]] by cut-pasting the entire contents of the page over. Additionally (though maybe more minor), this was done without establishing consensus for the move, even though the page had been {{Diff|Extraterrestrial UFO hypothesis|prev|1161867069|moved the other way before}} and therefore likely not an uncontested move.

I reverted the cut-paste page move and explained in both the edit summary and a message on their talk page that cut-pasting is an inappropriate way to move a page. They reverted my revert, which I had to undo again. Of note, this user has also previously performed, and been warned about, a [[User talk:Onemillionthtree#Onemillionthtree moved page Stable marriage problem to Stable matching problem|disruptive page move.]]

I have attempted at great length to warn/discuss/explain the issue in a [[User talk:Onemillionthtree#Page moves|message thread]] at their talk page, and signpost to appropriate resources about page moves, all to no avail. In this discussion, they have been completely unwilling to consider any point that's not their own, or to productively engage with any policy/guideline pages they were signposted to, in what seems to be a clear case of [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]]. In their replies, they have shown flagrant disregard for consensus, copyright/attribution, established procedures, and the concept of following Wikipedia policies at all. They are also trying to WikiLawyer justifications for why their disruptive edits aren't technically explicitly disallowed in a page that is specifically labelled "policy", including citing [[WP:IAR]].

This is not something I say lightly, as I do understand the gravity of it, but I am concerned that this editor is a case of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:SI09|SI09]] ([[User talk:SI09|talk]]) 05:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:Hiya, you probably need to add some diffs here demonstrating that each allegation is true.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 05:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:Onemillionthree has a habit of descending on a chosen topic in a manner that is overwhelming and problematic in its intensity. They seem to like to dig in, make dozens or hundreds of edits in a short span of time, perform saturation bombing with excessive cites, and roll right over anyone who tries to sanity-check the flood of alterations. By way of illustration from another arena, see the history of [[Crocodile]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crocodile&action=history] from 14-17 April of this year. Filling edit summaries with acronym-studded dissertations does not help. The material is actually often good ([[Crocodile#Etymology]] is now certainly in a better shape than before, if arguably too detailed and navel-gazing) but the mode of operation is disruptive. They seem to apply the same approach to [[Extraterrestrial UFO hypothesis]] at the moment - I can understand the irritation. I don't think they are NOTHERE, but they are certainly hard to collaborate with. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 10:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::I haven't looked into the user's past edits and clearly they were disruptively moving a page without consensus.  That said, the move suggestion they made is actually a pretty good one and they correctly identified that it's the more COMMON title. [[User:Feoffer|Feoffer]] ([[User talk:Feoffer|talk]]) 12:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:I ran into this user earlier with  an edit war on [[Orders of magnitude (temperature)]], tried to explain "edit war" as a term of art on Wikipedia, and got [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onemillionthtree&diff=prev&oldid=1290099034 a spiel about not being at war] that frankly makes me think [[WP:CIR]] is relevant. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 16:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:Well it's rather painful and annoying that I have to defend myself against false accusations in the first place - when the opportunity to learn something new from one's own mistakes could have been the situation instead:
:"most of the lifespan of the account) of persistent edit warring" - can't be true because if I had edit warred for most of the account, since 26 January 2025,  I wouldn't be here now and would be banned already. My input for most of [[User_talk:Onemillionthtree#Page_moves|the convo. with SI09]] was trying to establish what position of authority I had to observe with regards to the supposed policy which this user was suggesting. [[User_talk:Onemillionthtree#Page_moves|My findings were]]: 
:[[User_talk:Onemillionthtree#1_block_of_comments|1st block of comments down SI09: "Unambiguously not allowed under Wikipedia policy at WP:Page movement."]] 
:[[User_talk:Onemillionthtree#2nd_block|2nd block 03:30]]: I discovered "U not allow." was a false premise - "This page is currently inactive" so I couldn't therefore proceed to observe "WP:Requested moves " - " WP:RM#CM" as  SI09's direction in the 1st place was an error - this doesn't give me any legitimate principle which I could rely on to use to base my own actions 
:[[User_talk:Onemillionthtree#3rd_block|3rd block down SI09]] continues to indicate some idea of principle "policies" but infact the page indicated is "guidelines":  WP:MOVE. If we look to the 1st block, SI09: "under Wikipedia policy at WP:Page movement." Block 3 comments by SI09: " WP:Page movement is out of date, that's my bad, the up-to-date page is WP:MOVE" SI09 has fwice indicated a page for me to observe policy on and in both instances made an error.
:[[User_talk:Onemillionthtree#5th_block|5th block down SI09 again: "Yes, I am 100% suggesting that the article having what you consider to be an error in the title for a few extra hours or even days does not outweigh violating the attribution policy."]] In reposne for my prompt (also 5th block of comments): "if you would now indicate policy which shows your imperative that no page move could be made for "attribution"." 6th block of comments:
:[[User_talk:Onemillionthtree#6th_block|6th down SI09]] provides: "[[WP:HM]] [[WP:CWW#Repairing_cut-and-paste_moves_of_a_page]]" 
:[[User_talk:Onemillionthtree#7th_block|7th block down]] I discover  SI09 in error again: "WP:HM isn't policy" and also the same discovery as shown in [[User_talk:Onemillionthtree#7th_block_(penultimate)|the penultimate comment]] "WP:CWW#Repairing (etc)" is guidelines - you see this obvs. Also the section you have indicated doesn't stop page moves "the licensing violation can be repaired through the use of the ''history'' template" [[User:Onemillionthtree|(𒌋*𓆏)𓆭]]  18:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:At the time the policy I was basing my actions on is observable in [[User_talk:Onemillionthtree#5th_block|5th block comments]]:  "[[WP:NC]] is actually policy "Wikipedia:Article titles": Use commonly recognizable names:" which I showed in the editorial summary - 02:59: "the sources don't show +"UFO" " [[User:Onemillionthtree|(𒌋*𓆏)𓆭]]  18:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::Could you try to express the point you were trying to make by asking if Wikipedia is a political organization? "Policy" may look like the word "Political" but they do not mean the same thing, and that isn't a reason to ignore the policies and guidelines the way you said you intend to. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 19:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::It isn't the case that I stated I would "ignore the policies and guidelines the way you said you intend to". The meaning of [[User_talk:Onemillionthtree#2nd_block|Block 2:  03:20: (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭]] - is shown in that block:  "if there is a valid reason for the page move - which is to not enforce an error" - which you can observe a response of in 3rd block: "[[WP:IAR]] only applies when doing so is the only way to improve Wikipedia.". My meaning of 03:20 was - the spirit / reasons which cause the policy to exist at all - that is the value of all legitimate policy - is basically to ensure the addition of information continues in a flow uninterrupted by error / bad / evil / non-civility: for the evident reason that within the species intelligence is the energy which keeps us all from making errors which both waste life and sometimes end lives. So what I was stating at 03:20 was that the greater good of solving a problem - of which the reasons for the change I had already given - and the change is not a controversial / unusual difference should be tolerated / accepted - immediately - instead of delaying the change because of the sense that the more good would be done by observance instead of the protocol of policy. Really policy is a safeguard which is used in an environement where multiple entities, i.e. user / individuals must corroborate-collaborate all with different personal problems / perhaps temporary issues in life - lack of sleep, worries or woes  - which could interfere with their usual ability to rationally / reasonably deal with the problems of processing information and servicing this in the correct way free from error. As a lone human policy isn't strictly necessary for anyone who simply wants to make the world a better place and knows that the way to do this is providing intelligence in a way that is understandable to others - obviously teaching / lecturing is a good model for this. What I think is policy shouldn't rule people, it is good and understanding that should rule. This is same as saying: A. Policy rules: is like a force governs lesser humans whose behaviour is more like animals / primitive - the observance of existing policy is the governing value. B. The good and understanding rules: all humans are incentivized expected to know that good exists as their value, at least within wikipedia, and to understand the good in what is happeming, in wikipedia, that humans are good in principle - this is the same as thinking: policy exists within us all - in this type of environment - directing someone to policy should usually not be necessary. [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]] is infact wikipedia policy - not an essay or guidelines. The reason for this is that it presumes the good rules - not policing. That is the motivation which I was trying to express at:  03:20. Hopefully you will find my response allays your fears of my complete "ignoring of policy and guidelines" which infact I didn't state anywhere - so you have perceived erroneously in the words of my writings. [[User:Onemillionthtree|(𒌋*𓆏)𓆭]]  00:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}'''Support''' lengthy, but time-limited, block on the grounds that they just took 3K bytes to say "policy? ha! iar r00lz" [[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 01:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
That might be the most verbose version of sticking your fingers into your ears and going "lalala" that I've seen in some time. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 06:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*{{ping|Onemillionthtree}} You need to get better at communicating. You cannot write a wall of text in response to a post at ANI, people who do this wind up getting banned. Two questions, short answers essential. Do you understand that you must never use the copy paste method to move a page again? Do you accept you must follow the rules of wikipedia as laid out in its various policies from now on?[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 06:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:If I may, I'd suggest broadening the scope of the second question beyond the word "policy". There is a demonstrated tendency (in the discussion on their Talk page and even here in their first block of replies to this AN/I thread, e.g. diffs {{diff||prev|1297667892|here}}, {{diff|User talk:Onemillionthtree|prev|1297582288|here}}, {{diff|User talk:Onemillionthtree|prev|1297583337|here}}, {{diff|User talk:Onemillionthtree|prev|1297584389|here}} and {{diff|User talk:Onemillionthtree|prev|1297584772|here}}) of using WikiLawyering to justify completely ignoring pages on guidelines, strong recommendations, best practices etc. because they do not explicitly call themselves a "policy". [[User:SI09|SI09]] ([[User talk:SI09|talk]]) 11:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, that is reasonable. I would change the second question to "Do you agree to follow the rules of wikipedia and the guidelines and policies which set them out?"[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 13:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::: Right now, they're blocked for personal attacks, so don't expect an immediate answer. [[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 16:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, I'll give them a couple of days then see what they say.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 17:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Their resonses since the block are not promising. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::And I am fairly sure what the answer I'm going to get will look like, too. But sometimes people surprise you. If they don't, I would imagine OMT will get an exciting opportunity to be right all the time somewhere else.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 05:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

== Darkwarriorblake and personal attacks ==

I started an [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grooming_gangs_scandal|AfD]] for the page [[Grooming gangs scandal]] on the basis it was a POV fork. This has turned into a nightmare as someone decided to canvas the dispute on Twitter by dredging up a blog article I wrote five years ago about far-right anti-queer propaganda during Pride and grossly mischaracterizing it in order to impugn my reputation. This led to significant off-site harassment which I have contacted the emergency response team over. 

This compaint is not about that but rather about the on-wiki behaviour of {{U|Darkwarriorblake}} in response to this. They came to the AfD and posted the following comment: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FGrooming_gangs_scandal&diff=1297608963&oldid=1297606829] I have been facing enough nonsense off Wikipedia in the last 24 hours without having to see a personal attack like {{tq|in those links the nominator identifies themselves as a politcally left alligned person (with other concerning things in those screenshots I won't go into here), which makes their nomination of this topic suspect.}} In light of what those other "concerning things" in the Twitter thread were I took this as a severe personal attack. I also don't appreciate having my neutrality impugned on the basis of a statement I made on my personal blog about an entirely different issue a half-decade ago. On this basis I deleted the quoted text, replacing it with <personal attack removed> and told Darkwarriorblake that I had removed the insult and that I was seeking revision deletion of it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADarkwarriorblake&diff=1297623911&oldid=1293740884] Their response was to double-down: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkwarriorblake&diff=next&oldid=1297623911]. I then cautioned them in clear language that if they didn't cease these personal attacks I would be seeking sanctions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkwarriorblake&diff=next&oldid=1297624425] And their response to this was to restore the insult I'd previously deleted at the AfD.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grooming_gangs_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=1297624521] 

And so we are here. I would like to see the insult rev-delled but, furthermore, I would like to see a sanction against Darkwarriorblake for these insults. I have had a ''very'' long night because of the off-wiki harassment and I should not have to face more of the same on Wikipedia. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:Edited to add they are escalating their insults. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADarkwarriorblake&diff=1297626580&oldid=1297626214] [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::Additionally edited to add that some of the diffs above will no longer work as they have now been rev-delled. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::To clarify, I was the editor who had posted the links as a reference to canvassing and subsequently requested revdel after [[User talk:Simonm223#Offsite info|discussion with]] Simonm223. I naively hadn't checked the discussion and wrote it off as just another troll post. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 12:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:You admit you are left wing aligned, and you nominated a topic which has been described as right-wing, describing the factual evidence released in the recent Casey report of mass rape of young girls by Pakistani grooming gangs as a "fringe" theory. So I pointed out you are left wing, by your own admission, and your own comments show either a lack of awareness about the facts about the mass rape of hundreds of thousands of young girls, or a bias. Apologies if I live in one of those towns and am actually conscious of what was, and is going on and am somewhat upset at someone referred to it as "fringe" or, effectively, a lie. As I've already said, I do not wish to be involved in the discussion any further, I have made my vote and stance clear and we do not need to interact anymore beyond this date as we have never interacted before. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 12:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkwarriorblake&diff=prev&oldid=1297626580 This] in response to an ANI notification is insane. You ought to apologise to Simon immediately, there was nothing wrong with his nom, it was obviously in good faith. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 12:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Nominated as a "fringe" theory, factually not a fringe theory. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 12:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Didn't you just say you do not wish to be involved in this discussion further? Also you should have a good long read of [[WP:NPA]]. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 12:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::To anyone living outside the UK it looks like a cut and dry fringe conspiracy theory, I could start listing articles on nonsense like [[African gangs moral panic]] if you like. It was very obviously good faith. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 12:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Superficially...maybe, without investigating any of the material around it.[[User:Halbared|Halbared]] ([[User talk:Halbared|talk]]) 15:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Honestly that comment should be fully revdeled, thinly veiled accusations of being in support of grooming is, fucking disgusting. That alone should be grounds for sanctions.  [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 14:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::Seriously? You want to sling mud at another editor, while they are facing off-site harassment over slander you are regurgitating, and now you don't want to discuss anymore? Do us a favor, don't bother coming back please. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 12:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::If being {{tq|politically left aligned|q=yes}} makes their nomination {{tq|suspect|q=yes}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grooming_gangs_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=1297624521] what does the fact that you {{tq|live in one of those towns|q=yes}} say about your intervention and personal attacks? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 12:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::The editor has volunteered for an IBAN. Imo that seems to be the fairest outcome here. The underlying discussion is pretty heated, and probably half a dozen editors ''could'' be brought to ANI if people were motivated enough to do so. However, I don’t think it’s a good use of community resources to incentivise sanction-seeking where editors can self-police. ANI is ultimately a tool of prevention, after all. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 22:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::Hundreds of thousands? Really? That seems a lot [https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/baroness-caseys-audit-of-group-based-child-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse more than 1000]. on a side note, i know one trait nearly all the perpetrators have in common... [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 19:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I acknowledge that my use of "hundreds of thousands" may have been too broad if interpreted as referring solely to group-based child sexual exploitation (such as grooming gangs), as while it is a possible estimate, it is currently not officially evidenced. That was said in a highly emotionally charged moment, and I accept correction on the scale if taken literally. The available data suggests that while child sexual abuse in the UK is sadly widespread and estimated by the NSPCC to be in the millions across all forms of child abuse, confirmed figures for group-based cases specifically are lower. That said, I would respectfully suggest that it shouldn't have to reach "hundreds of thousands" for us to treat the issue seriously. Even tens of thousands, or a single town failed by systemic inaction, should be enough to justify concern about how such topics are framed and discussed. My reaction was grounded in that broader context, especially as someone affected by and from an area affected by such abuse, and not an attempt to distort or exaggerate.[[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 19:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:I completely agree that these personal attacks should not be tolerated on WP, and I'm shocked to see they are ongoing in this topic despite this topic and requesting to stop attacking ediotrs. This has gone far enough. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 12:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*I've been following development of this since last night when Simonm223 tipped me off to it, and had already revdeleted an IP posting links to the Twitter posts of violent threats, but went to bed before this escalation or I would have responded sooner. {{yo|Darkwarriorblake}} please explain, now, before you make any more edits, why you felt the need not only to post comments on Wikipedia drawing attention to those violent threats off-site, but also to persistently restore your posts after other users rightly removed them. What were you hoping to accomplish by drawing attention to these threats? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 12:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::I haven't posted anything about violent threats, at all, and now '''THAT''' is a serious accusation. {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} posted links to Twitter posts, I do not recall seeing anything violent when I clicked on them, just screenshots, so you're thinking of someone else. I also did not "persistently" revert my comments, I did that once and that's because it's my comment, no other editor should be modifying (not deleting) the comments of another, unless it needs to be deleted, in which case fine. So again, you're thinking of someone else. I drew no attention to any threats so now we're in a position where you need to retract your statement because it's an outright falsehood and serious accusation. If not for the above user posting the links, I wouldn't have even known they existed so ''they'' drew attention to it. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 12:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::So then why did you feel the need to repeatedly call attention to off-wiki harassment? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 12:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I didn't, I was talking to THE user who initially posted the links. The subject himself drew attention to it, is still doing so, with a comment stating that people found him because his Wiki name and offsite name are the same "Some people found one of my social media accounts which is active and which uses the same naming convention as my WP account" ON the nomination page. Claiming I was drawing attention to it when my comment was near the end of the article and the subject and another user had already indirectly and directly linked to it, is a stretch. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 13:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::In a comment that ''you wrote'' which is now revision deleted as a serious BLP violation, you directly referenced links to Twitter posts which you knew were drawing violent threats against an editor you were in a dispute with (you just wrote directly above that you saw that comment), and suggested that the existence of those links was evidence of that editor's bad faith motivation. After your aspersion was removed you restored it, and when Simonm223 asked you to withdraw it you not only refused but also responded with more personal attacks. Please explain what you thought you were accomplishing by doing this, or if you prefer you can explain it to another admin in an unblock request. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::I did not link to any Twitter posts and, again, I saw nothing to do with any threats of violence, the post was just screenshots of a Twitter profile and an article, so do not impose on me whatever incorrect information you have surmised or alternate twitter posts you have viewed because that is not what the third party, identified as CNC or community notes contributor, posted, at least not the first link, I don't recall if I looked at the second link they posted. I also did not reiterate ANY of the content in that twitter post outside of a twitter summary of the subject self identifying as Left orientated. The subject raised it again on my talk page in specificity of the content, at which point I responded outside of the nomination the detail to which he was specifically referring himself. I was also not in dispute with that editor on the nomination, I was talking to a third party. I was pointing out concerns regarding the motivation for the nomination and serious concerns of referring to a serious scandal as a "fringe" theory, which is tantamount to calling it a conspiracy theory, when the UK government has acknowledged the information in the Casey Report as accurate and requiring a national inquiry. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 14:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:I also encourage admins to keep an eye on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grooming gangs scandal]], there is very obviously off-wiki canvassing going on. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 12:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:I do regret needing to step into this discussion on ANI as an observer, but I have discovered a diff of [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] removing on their talk page their discussion with the OP, including the ANI notice and their reply to it. This is also not on their archives at the time of writing this. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkwarriorblake&diff=prev&oldid=1297647666]. [[User:Gramix13|Gramix13]] ([[User talk:Gramix13|talk]]) 16:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::The discussion is mentioned above and it's still in the edit history, it's not hidden from all eyes I Just didn't want it on my talk page. Why are you monitoring my talk page and/or contributions? [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 16:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Because you are under scrutiny, of course people who come across this thread are likely to check the page histories. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 17:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Procedural point''' - the diffs above were revdeleted relatively soon after this topic was opened. Neither the community, ''nor the accused editor'' can actually now review exactly what was said. How are people to assess the severity of the conduct? I understand that this is a serious allegation, but that is precisely why we need to ensure fairness to all sides here.
:[[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 22:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::One more thing - it seems a little unfair to me that Darkwarriorblade is being hauled over the coals for ''referring'' to links posted in the thread, while the editor who actually posted those links (and, when I pointed out that they doxxed Simonm223, doubled down), is not under scrutiny. On the contrary, they have had the nerve to sink the boot into Darkwarriorblade above. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 22:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::The difference is that the editor you're referring to posted in good faith in order to bring those posts to Simonm223's attention, not to attack their character and motivation based on their contents. They probably should have tried to do that more privately, but when Simonm223 asked CNC to remove them, they did so immediately. There is only one editor here, well now two I suppose, who continue trying to justify Darkwarriorblake's attempt at character assassination on what is meant to be a collaborative project. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 23:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::You keep accusing me of things like endorsing violence (without evidence), following up with more personal attacks (which is not true), and "character assassination" (without evidence) for stating the subject's political affiliation as which they self identified, (something that would not have happened without CNC's links), and questioning their dismissive usage of the term "fringe theory" for, again, the confirmed mass gang rape of children as laid out in the Casey Report which was endorsed the government of the United Kingdom. At this point, I feel you are violating [[WP:NPA]] against me. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 23:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Ivanvector}} it is hugely inappropriate for you to accuse me of 'trying to justify...character assassination' and I demand you strike that per NPA. You have also been extremely loose with what precisely DWB has done that you deem to be a character assassination, and I ask you to please specify this if you decide to continue arguing with the editor, so that he is not boxing at shadows. Finally, you are totally incorrect about the context of CNC's comment. He was not, as you say, trying to bring those posts to Simonm's attention. That statement is directly contradicted by subsequent comments. However, the comments have now been suppressed by Oversight. If not even you know precisely what was said (and it is clear from your comments that you do not) what are we even doing continuing this conversation? This thread should be closed with a blanket reminder of civility. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 00:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm sorry, but someone who [[WP:OUTING|outs someone]] ought to be at the very least indeffed. You can't close this without sanctions. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 00:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::I didn't post anything on that link you've added which is listed as personal information. Political leaning isn't mentioned on the page at all and the only reason I am aware of the leaning is because CNC posted twitter posts containing screenshots of their '''publicly''' available bio. Also, per that WP: OUTING page, it also states that outing applies unless the person has posted that information themselves, as they have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Simonm223&diff=prev&oldid=854171665 here] in the history of their userpage. So it wasn't a secret and it isn't an outing of their political stance. EDIT: That information was there as recently as Feb 2025, so nothing has been outed there. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 01:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It's still a shitty thing to post anyone's info just to point out a bias even if they posted it before. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 02:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I have been an on-and-off participant on Wikipedia for nearly two decades and, frankly, many of those userboxes no longer reflected my views - but they were often used by editors who ignore [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:FOC]] to propagate the absurd position that left-wing people are intrinsically less neutral than right-wing people. ''That is why I removed them months ago'' and, in fact, as recently as this month I've stated that I would be happy to do away with userboxes altogether. My left-wing politics are ''not'' what brought us here. Nor was the mistake that CNC made wehile trying to help, which they quite readily corrected the moment I asked them to, after they reached out to me to make sure I was OK. What brought us here, Darkwarriorblake, was your certainty that you had a right to say insulting things about me on a platform that disallow said comportment and your complete unwillingness to stop when you were asked to. Instead you have blustered and pointed fingers at me and at CNC. At this point a '''CBAN''' is the appropriate remedy in my eyes. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 02:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I want to start by acknowledging that this situation has become more emotionally charged than I ever intended and has escalated significantly out of control at this point. I've been having to defend against accusations from individuals I haven't even directly engaged with, which has been difficult. My original concern was about the framing and political tone of the nomination, and how the topic was being discussed. I now recognise that some of the actions I took, like reverting the edit of my comment, may have come across as combative, even though my intention was to avoid third-party edits to my words. I did make it clear in the edit summary that it could be removed altogether. I had walked away from the discussion, but when you brought it to my talk page and expanded in detail, it pulled me back into a conversation I was trying to step back from. That said, I recognise that you were also under pressure and dealing with serious issues of your own, which I wasn't aware of at the time. I truly apologise for contributing to that pressure. I am sorry for referencing political bias, for assuming intent behind your nomination, and for not recognising the broader context you were operating under, including the doxxing, of which I was unaware. At the same time, I would encourage anyone discussing this topic to approach it with sensitivity and full awareness of the deeply painful realities involved. Referring to a well-documented and tragic case as a "fringe theory" struck a personal chord for me, and I reacted strongly because I've lived through some of what was described, and know people who have too. That doesn't excuse how I expressed myself, but I hope it explains it. I let personal emotions and past trauma cloud my judgement in a discussion that required more care and neutrality, meaning I failed to represent the victims I was trying to defend. That was a mistake. I've been an editor here for 19 years and have always tried to contribute in good, if often sarcastic, faith. I don't believe a CBAN is a proportionate response, especially since I had already stepped back and have no intention of returning to that topic area. I've learned from this and will be focusing on the film and video game articles I enjoy editing, which are far less emotionally painful.[[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 03:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::You say {{tq|"I am sorry for [...] not recognising the broader context you were operating under, including the doxxing, '''of which I was unaware'''"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Darkwarriorblake-20250628031700-Simonm223-20250628022100] (emphasis added). When you previously said {{tq|"the only reason I am aware of the leaning is because CNC posted twitter posts containing screenshots of their publicly available bio"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Darkwarriorblake-20250628011600-LilianaUwU-20250628005600] and {{tq|"in those links the nominator identifies themselves as a politcally left alligned person"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grooming_gangs_scandal#c-Darkwarriorblake-20250627084700-CommunityNotesContributor-20250627080800].  So which one is it? Were you aware and chose to weaponize this doxx in the discussion despite the harm it would cause, or were you completely oblivious to what had happened as you now claim? Also are you now going to strike or remove your personal attacks in the AfD that you previously restored? So far you haven't even done that. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 09:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thank you for the clarification. When I mentioned I was unaware of the doxxing, I was referring to the extent and nature of it. I saw the post on Twitter that you shared that included screenshots of publicly available information. I did not interpret that at the time as coordinated harassment or real-world targeting, it was being described in the nomination as, effectively, cavassing for Keep votes. When the nominator later referenced "having the night from hell" (or something similar), I understood that they were describing a far more serious situation, involving direct harassment or contact, which I had not realised was taking place earlier. To be clear, I never intended to cause or contribute to harm. I mentioned the Twitter post only in the context of understanding political alignment, not to justify or amplify anything harmful. My understanding of "doxxing" involves targeting someone through personal or private channels, direct contact, coordinated harassment, or off-wiki attacks. Sharing public social media bios didn't meet that threshold in my mind, but I now see how even that can be part of a harmful pattern, and I regret referencing it at all. On the question of the AfD comments, as I mentioned, I stepped back from the discussion, haven't returned to that page, and it is not on my watchlist. I was under the impression that a user (possibly A0Toth, though I may be misremembering the username) had permanently deleted the more heated exchanges, including mine. Given that understanding, I had no reason to go back and check or modify further. If those comments are still visible and considered inappropriate, I'm happy to revisit and strike anything necessary, but I would require confirmation as I do not want to return to the page, unless necessary, for the previously mentioned reasons. Failing that, at this point, I'm more than happy for someone, including yourself, to strike them as long as you do not remove or change my original "Keep" vote which I do not believe was at issue. I remain sincere in my earlier apology. I recognise that, regardless of intent, my words had unintended consequences. I want to move forward constructively, and part of that is staying away from topics that are likely to provoke strong emotional reactions from me. I hope we can all find a way to de-escalate from this point. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 10:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thank you for clarifying, that makes more sense now. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 11:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::This thread is devolving into farce. We have the editor who ''actually committed'' the dox by posting a link to external identifying information seeking to inflame the situation against the editor who referred to the material ''that the other editor posted''. I don't think CMC deserves a block, because he didn't dox Simonm223 maliciously, but it's pretty galling to see him trying to get another editor blocked off the back of his behaviour. Can an uninvolved admin please close this already? [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 10:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::You're not helping. As mentioned on your talk page, CNC was not the original editor to post the link to that thread. It was posted by an IP at the same time the SPAs began arriving in force, and I reverted it as disruptive. It also contained text that I misinterpreted as a nasty attack on ''all'' editors, thus my deletion of the edit as I frequently delete such IP disruption. Had I realised that the link actually singled out the nom. by name, I'd have asked for a revdel at once (and here, I'd like to apologise to Simonm223 for not doing so). Fortunately Ivanvector noticed and revdelled. But yes, the link was maliciously doxxed by an IP editor, and the good faith linking by CNC was also a misjudgement, but was not doxxing as that had ''already happened''. You know this because I raised it on your talk page earlier, but you repeat it here at a point where, in fact, it is clear that Darkwarriorblake is sincerely attempting de-escalation and has apologised. Now is not the time to be combative. I said something else on your talk page. Take note of it. The best resolution here is most likely achieved if the likes of you and I sit back and let Darkwarriorblake and Simonm223 talk it out. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 12:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Just stop trying to divert the topic here. The person who doxed '''me''' was whoever it was who wrote that malicious and dishonest tweet. That matter is being handled by the Wikimedia safety team. This thread is '''not''' about the dox but about Darkwarriorblake's reaction to the dox which included some very clear insinuations that they believed me to be a danger to children. I take such a bad-faith assertion with ''grave anger'' which is why this thread is about them. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Frankly I am unsure if I can comfortably continue editing under the cloud of such an accusation. I have been quite vocally concerned about Wikipedia's response to queer issues for several months now. As my old writing addresses, accusations of child-endangerment and exploitation is one of the oldest and most violent forms of anti-queer slur. ''This was deployed against me because of an AfD not even associated wifh queer issues.'' How can I safely edit under such threats? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Thank you for your response. I want to be absolutely clear on a few critical points, as a serious allegation has now been made against me. At no point, in any part of my comments, did I accuse you of being a danger to children, explicitly, implicitly, or otherwise. That is simply untrue. I referenced the existence of the content in question, but I deliberately avoided elaborating on it in the AfD. In fact, it was you who brought the discussion to my talk page and expanded in greater detail on its content. I did not express an interpretation of it, nor did I assign intent or character judgement to you based on it. What I did say was that I found the material disturbing, to me, as it appeared to endorse certain content. That was my reaction to the material itself, not an accusation toward you personally. To be frank, I don't know how the individuals depicted in that material identify, they could be queer, straight, or otherwise, and your sexual orientation was not known to me then and is still not something I've ever considered relevant or referenced. It certainly wasn't included in your older Wiki userpage versions, and it played no role in anything I said. While I've tried to offer reconciliation and to disengage from the discussion, I categorically deny having made any accusation about you being a threat to children. If you've interpreted my words that way, I can only say that was never my intent, and I sincerely regret that the situation has escalated to this point. I am conscious that you were under distress from external factors, as mentioned above, that may have influenced and made worse the situation. I had already walked away from the AfD before this was taken further, and I have no interest in re-engaging on that topic. I hope this can bring clarity to what I said, and more importantly, what I did not say, and that we can finally draw a line under this. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 13:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{tq|If you were writing in favour of kids playing with people in kink gear, that ''is'' disturbing}}.
:::::::::::::::What did this mean then? This is a direct quote from you. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 20:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::It means what I said above. That comment was made in reference to the material itself, not to any editor personally. I was expressing discomfort with what appeared, to me, to be an endorsement of an event involving things I won't reiterate. That reaction was about the presentation in the source material, not about any editor’s character, motivations, or safety. It's important to clarify that I did not raise or describe that specific content myself in the AfD or elsewhere. It was only after the user came to my talk page and elaborated on the material in detail that I even referenced that reaction, as you will know from going through my edit history. Prior to that, I had deliberately avoided getting into the content, and I certainly did not accuse anyone of anything inappropriate, nor did I use language that implied they were a danger to children. Any interpretation beyond that is not based on what I actually said but on how others have chosen to read it. I regret if my words caused distress, and I've already apologised for letting my emotions show, but intent and context matter, and I categorically deny making any such accusation. It's also worth reiterating that I disengaged from the AfD before this escalation began. The discussion was brought to my talk page, not the other way around. I’ve tried to walk away and de-escalate, and I'd like that to be respected, but I won't accept having words or meanings falsely attributed to me. As I've said before, I am trying to de-escalate this situation from all sides. With that in mind, I would gently suggest that those who weren't directly involved in the AfD or the subsequent talk page exchange consider stepping back, as continued third-party commentary, however well-intentioned, risks prolonging the conflict rather than resolving it. And to LakesideMiners: I would also suggest removing the direct quote in question, since it appears to be what is causing the most distress to the user regardless of the actual context. Continuing to propagate it doesn’t help and may only escalate the situation further. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 21:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::It was in reference to HIS material. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 21:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Thank you, and yes, exactly. My comment was in reference to the material itself, not to Simonm223 as a person. That distinction matters. I reacted to how the media came across to me, after it was brought up in detail on my talk page. I deliberately avoided naming anyone or discussing it in detail in the AfD. I've also made it clear, repeatedly, that I did not accuse Simon of anything, and certainly not of being a danger to children. Any other interpretation is a misreading of what I actually said. I hope we can all keep that distinction in mind moving forward, so this situation doesn't continue to escalate.[[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 21:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Arguably this is about more than just one user now, as Ivanvector noted, especially give the recent [[WP:CASTING]] accusing me of {{tq|"seeking to inflame the situation"}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Riposte97-20250628104700-CommunityNotesContributor-20250628094900] Incitement is not an easy accusation to prove and I'm yet to see the diffs as evidence. Along with {{tq|"trying to get another editor blocked"}} that is fundamentally not true (as of typing). [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 13:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::While I cannot control what others do, per my previous comments, I would encourage everyone to just look at de-escalating at this point rather than expanding the scope. It's the weekend, we should be enjoying ourselves, gardening, enjoying nice food, and instead we are here arguing. Having had time away to breathe and reassess, it's time to move on. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 13:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::An excellent suggestion. I for one will not be looking back here unless pinged. Good evening to all. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 13:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*{{nacmt|anyone of importance}} Given that some of the evidence is apparently bad enough to be revdeled as mentioned (assuming the RD2 instead of RD4 is correct), and {{em|is}} actually suppressed, it would seem either [[WP:FUNCT]] or ArbCom are the only people that who can look at the issue in its entirety. An official comment would probably not be amiss whether any formal action is taken, or not. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 15:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:A whole day has passed and the person who all but accused me of awful things based on a broken-telephone, bad-faith, interpretation of something I wrote 5 years ago faces no consequences because they want to "move on." Meanwhile I cannot move on because Breitbart is now writing about me. I am very saddened by this course of events. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 21:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*::Simonm223, I truly am sorry that this situation has escalated to the point where you're now facing attention from external media. That kind of exposure is distressing, and I want to be absolutely clear: I do not support or condone real-world harassment or off-wiki targeting in any form. However, I must also clarify that I assume the article stems from the social media coverage. I did not create or share that Twitter post, and I have never engaged in any off-wiki activity related to you. My only involvement has been on-wiki, in a deletion discussion and then on my own talk page, both of which I have since stepped away from. You've written that I "all but accused" you of awful things, which seems to acknowledge that I did not actually make such an accusation, and that this is instead an interpretation based on others' reading of my words. I appreciate that you're hurt by how things have played out and are being affected by external factors beyond your control, but I respectfully maintain that I neither said nor implied what is now being attributed to me. The only statement I made on the subject came after the material in question was described in detail, not by me, and I reacted to how it came across. I did not describe the content in detail in the AfD itself, and I certainly did not suggest you were a danger to anyone. I've tried to show accountability where my tone may have caused distress, and I've expressed regret for engaging emotionally, but it is simply not accurate to say that I made the kind of accusation now being discussed. I've stepped away from the discussion in good faith, and I continue to do so now. I'm not trying to "move on" to avoid responsibility, but because ongoing conflict helps no one. I truly hope this situation improves for you soon, and I regret that it has come to this for both of us.[[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 21:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*Just for clarity, here is where Darkwarriorblake made the accusation they denied making above; emphasis mine on all quotes below to highlight the parts I feel are being overlooked. I think that things got sidetracked into the "left-wing" part of the accusation; while that is an [[WP:ASPERSION]] itself, it pales compared to what Darkwarriorblake was obviously implying here:
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1297624521&oldid=1297624446&title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grooming_gangs_scandal] {{tq|and in those links the nominator identifies themselves as a politcally left alligned person ('''with other concerning things in those screenshots I won't go into here'''), which makes their nomination of this topic suspect}} - they restored this one even after it was removed as a personal attack.
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1297626580&oldid=1297626214&title=User_talk%3ADarkwarriorblake] {{tq|'''If you were writing in favour of kids playing with people in kink gear, that ''is'' disturbing''', and you've literally just spelled out that you are motivated by confront things you consider to be "far-right", which would explain why you would describe the Pakistani Grooming gangs as a "fringe" theory in your nomination made days after the Casey report which confirmed it was actually a widespread, serious issue. '''These aren't personal attacks, it's stating facts with support from evidence.'''}}
:Note that this contradicts their statements above that they didn't ''imply'' anything - presumably their position is that because they initially were vague about "other concerning things" and then put "if" in front of the most serious accusation, it was not an actual accusation, or something of that nature, but the implication is unequivocal and unacceptable. Given the severity of these [[WP:ASPERSION]]s / personal attacks, and given their total lack of remorse evident in the "I'm sorry you're so distressed" non-apology above, I think serious sanctions are called for. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you, but I believe we've reached the point, as outlined only a few answers above, where continued third-party commentary, particularly from those not involved in the original exchange,is becoming more disruptive than helpful. I've already addressed these points clearly and repeatedly. The "concerning things" remark referenced the content in the Twitter screenshots, but I deliberately avoided going into detail to prevent exactly this kind of inflammatory interpretation. That decision has since been taken out of context and weaponised and is being magnified with each subsequent raise by each uninvoled third party. My "if" statement about children and kink gear was a direct response to media that had been described in detail by another editor, not an accusation toward them. I expressed my personal reaction to that material, which I found deeply uncomfortable, which was enhanced by the personal experiences also outlined above. That is not the same as saying "you are a danger to children", and I have never made such a claim. I've categorically denied any such accusation, and even Simonm223 acknowledged I "all but accused" them, implicitly recognising I did not actually say what is now being alleged. I've apologised sincerely for referencing political affiliation and for letting my emotional reaction to a difficult topic influence my tone, on multiple occasions, so I'm not sure why you believe or have the right to assume it is insincere. I've also repeatedly disengaged, and have been asking that we draw this to a close. I understand this is a sensitive issue. But dragging it out by reframing past statements, despite extensive clarification, does not benefit anyone and undermines genuine attempts to de-escalate. I ask again, respectfully, unless there is new information, please allow this matter to rest. I've taken responsibility for my part and will continue to avoid this kind of emotionally charged topic going forward.[[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 19:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::For my part, I still agree with Aquillion, I find the word-mincing and pseudo-apologies very frustrating. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 21:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::I know no one cares what people who don't create accounts think, but I think Aquillion hits the nail on the head here; Darkwarriorblake's non-apologies are fundamentally disingenuous, and adding the word "if" at the beginning of a gross personal attack that is part of a larger smear campaign against another editor does not, in my eyes, make it somehow ok -- at best it smacks of an attempt to create plausible deniability. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 01:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I will beat the drum of 'require sign-in to edit' until the WMF comes home, but as long as unregistered editors can edit, their opinions are just as valid as registered users' - and I agree, Aquilon ''absolutely'' hits the nail on the head. Given that blatant personal attack and the wishy-washy psuedo-apolgies and [[WP:WIKILAWYERING|Wikilawyering]] since I'm shocked DWB isn't blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::[[WP:BEBOLD]] [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 05:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
=== Proposal: 1 month block for personal attacks ===
Given the seriousness of Darkwarriorblake's attacks and his half hearted attempts at "apologies" in this discussion. I propose that Darkwarriorblake be blocked for 1 month for personal attacks. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per nom. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::I had stepped back from this, but I feel the need to speak up given how my apologies continue to be framed as "pseudo" or "half-hearted." I've made genuine, good-faith efforts to acknowledge concerns, show contrition, and seek reconciliation, efforts now being dismissed out of hand by some who have never interacted with me in over 20 years of editing. This was a freak occurrence, a moment of lapse during a debate around an extremely sensitive and emotionally charged subject. It's not reflective of my usual conduct or how I engage with the community. It's not easy to be vulnerable, to apologise sincerely, or to share difficult personal context, but I've done all of that, repeatedly, and without defensiveness, once removed from that initial moment. I haven't minimised the impact of my words, I've listened to feedback and tried to engage with respect. It's disheartening to see those efforts disregarded or reinterpreted in the most negative light, especially by those who weren't part of the original discussion and don't appear to be engaging with what I've actually said. Wikipedia has been a part of my life for decades, it's my hobby, my passion, and I don't wish to be banned from contributing. Much of the last five years has been spent working to bring numerous film and video game articles up to Featured status, and I'd like to continue focusing on that. I'm not trying to relitigate the discussion, only to say clearly, my apologies have been real and I have wholeheartedly learned my lesson. The piling-on at this stage feels less about resolution or reconciliation and more about retribution. I believe that matters. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 21:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support 3 month block''' I believe Darkwarriorblake's reply to Hemiauchenia above is now the ninth time (according to my count) that they have repeated their apology and asking for people to move on from this discussion. This is becoming [[WP:BLUD|bludgeoning]] at this point with how often they have tried to argue with commenters that we should move on when Simonm223 {{tq|find[s] the word-mincing and pseudo-apologies very frustrating}}. This, combined with the severity of the statements made against Simonm223 especially on the talk page, lead me to believe that a longer block is necessary than merely one month (although I am still in favor of a block for one month if that ends up as the consensus). To Darkwarriorblake, while I disagree with your conduct, I do think you still deserve some chance to prove that you truly meant the apology that you gave to Simonm223 with actions instead of words, so I urge you to remember that [[WP:SATISFY|no one is obligated to satisfy you]] when you repeat the same apology and asking that the discussion of your mistakes ends due to said apology. It might be best to just [[WP:LETGO|let this go]] and follow the consensus made here to make good on your apology. [[User:Gramix13|Gramix13]] ([[User talk:Gramix13|talk]]) 22:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' proposed 1 month block. The personal attacks were egregious, and even if the apologies are sincere (which I'd have to say I have doubts about, given the attempt to exclude from this discussion those probably best placed to make an objective assessment - those that "have never interacted with [Darkwarriorblake] in over 20 years of editing") a block of this duration will provide an opportunity to reflect on whether it is wise to engage with topics where one cannot control ones emotional response. 'Grooming gangs' are a sensitive topic, and keeping a level head about the subject is clearly necessary: something clearly lacking even in this thread, where Darkwarriorblake seems to have been pulling absurd numbers of alleged victims out of thin air for rhetorical effect. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support a month block at minimum''' I would prefer a longer one but if a month is what the community proposes it will have to suffice. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 23:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support 1 month at a minimum'''
Fully agree with Andy, he hit the nail out of the park on this one and articulated it with much less profanity then I would have used. I'd like to see a longer block(or even indef) but am unsure at which point it would no longer be preventive and instead become punitive. Id also propose a topic ban from grooming related subjects for Dark wing as it seems clear he can't act with a level head in those topics and given the sensitivity of it, it's a risk. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 23:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== User Jackedano Continuous Disruptive Editing, Copyright Violations ==

''Bringing back from archive after discovering that same user had been previously brought to ANI for the same issue.'' [[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) 15:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Jackedano}}
Prolific editor {{User|Jackedano}} has developed a troubling pattern of disruptive editing, ignoring multiple talk page warnings and requests from other editors to provide citations. This appears to have developed into copyright violations, most recently when building the page [[Olympo]], where the user directly copied text ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olympo&diff=1296876927&oldid=1296696663 diff]) from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olympo&diff=1296876927&oldid=1296696663 this site] to build the [[Olympo#Premise]] section. Just a few days ago, the user had edits removed and was warned for copyright violations on the page for [[Single, Out]]. Many of the unsourced edits are to chart information on music pages, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jade_Bird&diff=prev&oldid=1296573331 here] and a series of edits ending [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grammy_Award_for_Best_Traditional_Country_Album&diff=next&oldid=1295425046 here].

The user in question clearly has made many substantive, good-faith, productive edits, but they've built a pattern of ignoring warnings which has evolved into blatant copyvios. I'm not sure what this user's motivations are, they've been editing for years now and should have grown out of this sort of thing a long time ago. [[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) 02:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

: This user also has a history of adding in [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|unsourced content]] into articles (with warnings dating back to November 2020). It's become clear this user not only will not acknowledge the warnings/concerns raised on their talk page by ''multiple'' editors (including myself), but that they intend to [[WP:DUCK|continue their patterns of behaviour]]. In [[Special:Diff/1290266007|this edit]] they added in information that both contradicted what was cited and was unsourced content (it was [[Special:Diff/1290266924|reverted]] citing unsourced content with [[Special:Diff/1290267054|a warning given]]; the user then [[Special:Diff/1290267800|proceeded to continue adding in unsourced content]], which was [[Special:Diff/1290268733|reverted]] with [[Special:Diff/1290268827|another warning given]]—this time noting their repeated behaviour, ''multiple'' warnings, and noting the next step would be to a noticeboard). Well, now we're at the noticeboard. '''<span style="font-size:95%;">[[User:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#2980b9">livelikemusic</span>]]</span>''' <span style="font-size:95%;">([[User talk:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#8e44ad">TALK!</span>]])</span> 02:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::Seems like a CIR case to me. Maybe a block from article space until they can respond here will get their attention? <span class="nowrap" style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Franklin Gothic Medium;background:linear-gradient(to right,#fd9f88,#79382c,#503e60);padding:0 4px;">[[User talk:Gommeh|»]]&nbsp;[[User:Gommeh|<span class="nowrap" style="color:#fbffff;">Gommeh&nbsp;(he/him)</span>]]</span> 02:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Sounds like a good idea to me. It either gets their attention and they stop doing the stuff that got them here in the first place, or they remain blocked indefinitely. Either way, problem is solved, though I'd be curious if they'd try to sockpuppet their way around a block rather than engaging here. [[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) 16:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Looks like the user was previously taken to ANI for the same thing without any outcome ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#User:Jackedano's unsourced additions|see here]]). A block from article space seems to be in order here since the user is still non-responsive. [[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) 15:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:User continues to make dozens of unsourced edits, including a series ending [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glastonbury_Festival_2025&diff=next&oldid=1297968126 here] on the page for the Glastonbury Festival 2025. Not only that, they've been flooding the page with edits, with over 50 edits in the last 48 hours, mostly small updates to lineups and song sets for the festival, some of which are sourced and some of which are not. Other edits include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Wanna_Be_a_Cowboy,_Baby!&diff=prev&oldid=1297792067 this one], which is likely [[WP:OR|original research]] as it is not supported by the linked source. [[User:Nfutvol|nf utvol]] ([[User talk:Nfutvol|talk]]) 18:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

== Uncivil IP user now making veiled threats (possible repeat of Sydney Scouting IP) ==

The user at {{User|115.42.8.109}} (also {{User|115.42.13.151}}, {{User|115.42.10.20}}) has been engaged in combative ("Oh Brian, you're getting it all fuddled again!" and "Erp, You change your argument, endlessly") and uncooperative behavior on the [[Talk:Scouting]] page and repeatedly reverted edits against consensus on the [[Scouting]] article.  Various users have encouraged him to get a proper account and to engage civilly with little result.  User {{User|Boynamedsue}} pointed out that a similar set of IPs was engaged in similar behavior back in 2022 ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095#Sydney_Scouting_IP_user_(multiple_issues)|Sydney Scouting IP user]])  After which the IP posted what I consider a 
{{diff2|1297645333|veiled threat on my talk page}} "Look through the list of your Wikiproject group members. We publicly outed a disproportionate number of your group over years and they've been permanently blocked while others fled and ceased editing. Some of our team are interested in editors with presences on other sites and the dark web, others are researching what passes for editorial discussion and control and then that's capped off by Wikipedia's notorious administrators"  Users {{User|North8000}}, {{User|Bduke}}, {{User|HiLo48}} have also been involved in the discussions. --[[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 23:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*Not sure how [[WP:ROLE]] relates to IPs, but {{tqq|we...our team}} applied to an account would absolutely be a role account. Note that the range appears to be [[Special:Contributions/115.42.8.109/20]], which covers all three IPs listed here with no apparent collateral. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::I just spot-checked a few edits and didn't see any disruption but I'm not familiar with the subject area. If there is disruptive editing, I think a range-block would be appropriate for a limited amount of time. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:I blocked [[Special:Contributions/115.42.8.109/20|115.42.8.109/20]] for three months. That's more than a "limited amount of time" but the threat linked above is not acceptable and the stable range was blocked for a week in April 2022 for "Disruptive editing + personal attacks". [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*Johnuniq ninjaed me here, but I'm going to leave the post I wrote for the record because it sets out the facts with diffs:

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AErp&diff=1297645333&oldid=1297626513] This is a clear threat to dox someone, especially when combined with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGirl_Guides&diff=1295350752&oldid=1294898203 this post] which explicitly uses the term "out", and not acceptable. It also displays [[WP:NOTHERE]], which is noticeable throughout the totality of their editing. This user can hardly make an edit without getting into a massive fight, they put far more energy into arguing than editing. In any case, they also constantly edit war.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting&diff=1293662108&oldid=1293599112], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting&diff=1295358073&oldid=1294824948], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting&diff=1295360583&oldid=1295359427], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting&diff=1295465584&oldid=1295393760], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting&diff=1296142110&oldid=1295918106], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting&diff=1296148551&oldid=1296142286], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting&diff=1296149084&oldid=1296148623], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting&diff=1296330447&oldid=1296227009], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting&diff=1296338425&oldid=1296333226]. The last set of reverts were adding a disputed tag which they showed no interest in justifying on the talk page, refusing to state the changes they wished to see despite being directly asked. As well as this, they show a tendency to "revenge tag" when annoyed with other users, for example this senseless tag-bombing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting&diff=1296918301&oldid=1296793538]. 

:If this user is allowed to continue to edit, best case is that they remain a massive time sink, worst case is that they are telling the truth and they are going to dox someone. Range block is essential here.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 07:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Everything here is just my opinion / take. This user has been immensely disruptive at the [[Scouting]] article......a read of the talk page, the article history and the warnings given them at their talk page would produce I'd guess 30-40 issues at that article alone.  I was working my way up to wasting a 1/2 hour of my life detailing everything reporting.  Not wanting to spend that 1/2 hour now, I'm just going to make general notes from memory.  I think they did about 7RR edit wars (reverts or the equivalent) on the top level "factually disputed" template, each putting back in their general complaints, mostly about other editors into the template itself.     And, other than asking for a specific factually wrong outlandish first sentence in the article early in the process, they refused to say specifically what they wanted or what their proposed change was. Even requests for them  to say what they wanted were answered with insults or vague complaints rather than saying specifically what they wanted.  Same with not saying what the templated "factual dispute" was ....even what they were warring into the template was just mostly general complaints about what other editors said in talk. And I think that the insulted nearly every one of the other participants at the article.  I my mind I viewed it as "arguing for the sake of arguing" or maybe some kind of resentment of / pushback against some of the name changes in scouting organizations.   Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 15:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

== Unattributed page translations by Indonesianinfo2 ==

*{{userlinks|Indonesianinfo2}}
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=all&newOnly=1&start=&tagfilter=&target=Indonesianinfo2&offset=&limit=50 List of page creations by Indonesianinfo2]


Could someone attempt to get through to [[User:Indonesianinfo2|Indonesianinfo2]] with regard to unattributed translations of pages from the Indonesian wiki? They have been told on their talk page that they need to provide attribution many times, and not responded to any of them.

:On May 1, twice, via template message, by [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] for
::[[Ni Luh Djelantik]] from [[:id:Ni Luh Djelantik]]
::[[Dewa Made Mahayadnya]] from [[:id:Dewa_Made_Mahayadnya]]
:On May 5, without the template, by [[User:Shirt58|Shirt58]] for 
::[[I Nyoman Adi Wiryatama]] from [[:id:I Nyoman Adi Wiryatama]]
:On May 21, via template message, by Vanderwaalforces for
::[[Taj Yasin Maimoen]] from [[:id:Taj Yasin Maimoen]]
:On May 28, twice, via template message, by [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] for
::[[I Wayan Adi Arnawa]] from [[:id:I Wayan Adi Arnawa]]
::[[Bagus Alit Sucipta]] from [[:id:Bagus Alit Sucipta]]
:On May 30, via template message, by Vanderwaalforces for
::[[Tjokorda Gde Surya Putra]] from [[:id:Tjokorda Gde Surya Putra]]
::[[I Made Satria]] from [[:id:I Made Satria]]
::[[I Wayan Pandu Prapanca Lagosa]] from [[:id:I Wayan Pandu Prapanca Lagosa]]
::[[I Made Agus Mahayastra]] from [[:id:I Made Agus Mahayastra]]
:On June 27, via template message and additions, by myself for
::[[List of speakers of the West Java Regional House of Representatives]] from [[:id:Daftar Ketua Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Provinsi Jawa Barat]]

I suspect that other messages on their talk page such as ones about CS1 errors, red-link categories, and disambiguation links being added, plus the one on May 27 by [[User:Est. 2021|Est. 2021]] about ":id:" links and date formatting are connected to translated pages as well.

Looking at some of the pages on both wikis, also tend to show wikilinks to the same other pages in the same order or the same word linked that goes to a non-existent page. For example [[:id:Lambang Kalimantan Barat]] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coat_of_arms_of_West_Kalimantan&oldid=1297210561 original English revision] of Coat of arms of West Kalimantan:
* "Pancasila" linked on Indonesian page and going to a disambiguation page on the English version
* The phrases "hexagonal shield" and "perisai segi enam" both linking to "Talawang", but that being about a Nepalese village development committee on the [[Talawang|Talawang English page]].
* "Mandau" being some type of sword on [[:id:Mandau|Indonesian wiki]] and a river on [[Mandau|English wiki]].
* "Aneka Ilmu" and "Various Sciences" being red-links under the publisher parameter in the sole reference on both pages.
* And... the many parameters that are used on the Indonesian page that show up as "unknown parameters" on the first revision of the English one.

Their latest page creation, as of my beginning to pre-write this, was [[Riau Islands Regional House of Representatives]] at 22:11, 27 June 2025 (from [[:id:Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Provinsi Kepulauan Riau]]) which also contains a "dead-url" parameter in the very first reference on the English version that exists in the Indonesian one. It also has no attribution as to its source, so they are continuing to do it.

As far as I can tell from the 'show this many results' part of the search page, they've made over 100 pages, and I'm not looking forward to going through such a large number of pages to check and either add <nowiki>{{Unattributed translation}}</nowiki> banners or putting attribution comments in that many pages for them. [[User:Orxenhorf|Orxenhorf]] ([[User talk:Orxenhorf|talk]]) 08:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:This user might just be finding it difficult to use edit summaries as can be seen from other notifications on their talk page. Is it that they do not know how to? Because we can’t really tell especially looking at the fact that they have failed to at least respond to talk page messages; communication is indeed key. 
:Just by the way, I think this aspect of English Wikipedia is very overlooked. People hardly take that notification seriously, it happens to be one of the friendliest notifications here. There are several other users I have on my radar who have created several hundreds of articles unattributed, and once in a while I try to add the proper attribution based on [[WP:RIA]]. I do not really know exactly what the problem is because apart from this specific user, others have also not been able to do the attribution properly, while others didn’t even change or take corrections. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 09:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

: My question: are vice regents even notable via [[WP:NPOL]]/[[WP:NSUBPOL]]?  They would seem to me to be equivalent to deputy mayors in the UK, and I'm pretty sure they're not. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:: {{tl|Translated page}} is one of the very easiest templates to add. If you know about it, there's no excuse for not doing so. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 14:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] Right. Although the requirement is actually more of the edit summary than the translated page template at the talk page. But all the same, the user is just not responding to messages. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 14:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:Well, they responded to the notice that I put on their talk page that this discussion was opened, so they are definitely aware of it. The reply was in Indonesian and didn't address anything about attribution. Since the only other comment they've made on their talk page was also, I'm being to wonder about how strong their English comprehension is and if computer-assisted translation is doing the bulk of the work or not. Is there any chance of finding a bilingual administrator? [[User:Orxenhorf|Orxenhorf]] ([[User talk:Orxenhorf|talk]]) 20:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

* OK, well, I've got back to looking at some of these, and [[Draft:I Wayan Pandu Prapanca Lagosa]] is certainly not sourced well enough for a BLP.  The editor published it, and it was moved to draft - ''they moved it straight back'' (I've put it back again). Nor, I think is [[Muhidi]], not to mention the number of unfixed errors on the page which Indonesianinfo2 ''must'' have been aware of.  Others are similar.  Some aren't bad, some appear somewhat pointless and some may be non-notable. However, they need to '''stop''' and consider what they are doing.  Therefore, I have '''pblocked the editor from creating new pages''' until they engage here. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 21:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Looking at the source for [[Muhidi]] I've just realized something else that's, well, "attribution-adjacent", in a way. The pages seem to either still have an attempted link such as "<nowiki>[[Id:Muhidi]]</nowiki>" somewhere is the footer areas, or have had it removed by someone along the way. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni_Luh_Djelantik&diff=prev&oldid=1287589312] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Made_Satria&diff=next&oldid=1292626359] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bagus_Alit_Sucipta&diff=prev&oldid=1292743761] It doesn't appear on the rendered page without a leading ":" though. [[User:Orxenhorf|Orxenhorf]] ([[User talk:Orxenhorf|talk]]) 22:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Im here let me make an article, want to continue making Regional House of Representatives for all provinces in Indonesia don't worry I use AI so it's safe and the pram error will be fixed by roaming bots, My English is bad I can't argue without translate [[User:Indonesianinfo2|Indonesianinfo2]] ([[User talk:Indonesianinfo2|talk]]) 11:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*::I don't think there are bots that correct many of the parameters on enwiki. Unlike idwiki, we cannot assume that the bulk of the content is translated mainly from a single language. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 12:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Guys sorry my English is bad This talk article took a long time to translate and lags when I join the talk but I want to say to Black Kite, are you block me to create article? that small error what did i do? what is this? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia please delete there is no time limit i will improve my article creation and be more careful to create new articles because i used AI now so more fast and safe, Please Kite, I haven't finished my task to create Regional House of Representatives in all provinces in Indonesia, that's all 🙏 and i think the error prem can be fixed by the roaming bots here , <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Indonesianinfo2|Indonesianinfo2]] ([[User talk:Indonesianinfo2#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Indonesianinfo2|contribs]]) 04:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)</small>
:Do you have any relation to [[User:Indonesiainfo24]]? [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] <span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#FFF">[[User_talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|talk]]</span> 11:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::It's just a coincidence, I was actually inspired by those names. No there is no connection I can't even login to that account, I will send proof via photos on Wikimedia if you want [[User:Indonesianinfo2|Indonesianinfo2]] ([[User talk:Indonesianinfo2|talk]]) 11:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
* OK, now we have the issue, as Indonesianinfo2 said above {{tq|i will improve my article creation and be more careful to create new articles because i used AI now so more fast and safe}}.  They have also said the same about the use of AI on my Talk Page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlack_Kite&diff=1297926399&oldid=1297888545] ({{tq|The article is done in draft because i adding biography and credible sources with the help of AI}}. Oh, and now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlack_Kite&diff=1297929267&oldid=1297926399 this]. Thoughts? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Please unblock me to make article why you block me without time limit ? [[User:Indonesianinfo2|Indonesianinfo2]] ([[User talk:Indonesianinfo2|talk]]) 12:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Great, right? AI knows the content of the article without us having to do it ourselves and they add sources to the article. [[User:Indonesianinfo2|Indonesianinfo2]] ([[User talk:Indonesianinfo2|talk]]) 12:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:: And you have checked every one of these AI-added sources to ensure they cite the facts correctly?  Unfortunately, as you may see looking through the archives of this page and [[WP:AN]], AI-generated articles have a tendency to handle sources badly (and even to make them up). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::The AI-generated stuff is typical bullshit-bot promotional waffle ("Since his school years, he has been known as a diligent reader and was often referred to as a visionary figure by his peers and family", "He is known to be deeply respectful of his family values and traditions. A widely covered emotional moment during his inauguration was when he knelt in reverence before his elderly father..." etc), and regardless of sourcing, doesn't belong in a biography. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 12:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::It's true that for a biography it's strange, but for this legislature it can be useful because we only need to translate the articel from the wiki id which has been sourced and tell the AI to translate it, so when I created legislature (regional house of representatives) being fast [[User:Indonesianinfo2|Indonesianinfo2]] ([[User talk:Indonesianinfo2|talk]]) 12:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To set up the table template I told the AI to set it so that it can be viewed on the English Wikipedia so it's not messy. [[User:Indonesianinfo2|Indonesianinfo2]] ([[User talk:Indonesianinfo2|talk]]) 12:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::I have checked the source, it is in Indonesian, AI jut translated it in english and that all acurate and facts, and that is how I create new articles now, copying the text of the article on the wiki id and asking I to translate it. It worked! the article got completed quickly without us making it ourselves, please note that I made the article without AI with a Nokia cellphone which takes time but AI doesn't [[User:Indonesianinfo2|Indonesianinfo2]] ([[User talk:Indonesianinfo2|talk]]) 12:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::So in conclusion I did this to speed up article creation  things up of course there are errors in the sources but I think bots and the supervisors at Wikipedia will fix it if they notice it don't worry. [[User:Indonesianinfo2|Indonesianinfo2]] ([[User talk:Indonesianinfo2|talk]]) 12:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::no. You are responsible for your errors. You don't get to waste others' time and effort correcting your mistakes, especially if it is repeated apparently without care. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 12:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::I'm going to have to disagree with your comment {{tq|I have checked the source, it is in Indonesian}}. One of the pages originally mentioned was [[List of speakers of the West Java Regional House of Representatives]]. In the edit I made on that page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_speakers_of_the_West_Java_Regional_House_of_Representatives&diff=prev&oldid=1297627597https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_speakers_of_the_West_Java_Regional_House_of_Representatives&diff=prev&oldid=1297627597] to fix the error message it was generating, I also commented out two of the "access-date" parameters as invalid because they were from years prior to the page being created. I've since looked at the [[:id:Daftar Ketua Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Provinsi Jawa Barat]] source page. It also has the same two dates next to "Diakses tanggal" ("access-date" in the source code) of 2023 and 2018, but the page history there shows the page wasn't made until October 3, 2024. Even a very basic check of the sources on the page and the history would have told you that they can't be valid dates there either. [[User:Orxenhorf|Orxenhorf]] ([[User talk:Orxenhorf|talk]]) 18:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*:They made this comment under the topic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baqotun0023#DPRD DPRD] on [[User:Baqotun0023|Baqotun0023]]'s talk page: {{tq|Waduh bang sekarang aja buatnya pakai chatgpt biar cepat kayak aku dikit lagi itu bang DPRD nya menyebar seluruh provinsi padahal}} at 11:56, 29 June 2025.  Translated by Google (and I won't take it as gospel, but it should be close) it comes back as ''"Wow, bro, now just use chatgpt to make it faster, like I'm about to do it, bro. The DPRD is spread throughout the province, even though"''. That is an admission that they are using chatgpt to do the work, and doesn't seem to carry any intention of stopping or of a new commitment to do better. [[User:Orxenhorf|Orxenhorf]] ([[User talk:Orxenhorf|talk]]) 18:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:Given that above utterly clueless response, which amounts to a complete refusal to accept responsibility for their own edits, and expecting others to clean up the mess, I would have to suggest that maybe Indonesianinfo2 shouldn't be editing the English-language Wikipedia at all. [[WP:CIR|Competence is required]]: which includes the ability to write for yourself, not to copy-paste vacuous promotional LLM waffle. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 12:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:Just posted on Black Kite's talk page, referring to this thread: "Well, as I said, my English is bad and I only use the translate on my Nokia phone and the page is hard to translate on my phone because it frames so I don't really understand what is being talked about there, I'll just wait for it to finish..." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlack_Kite&diff=1297938519&oldid=1297937930] This is an outright admission that Indonesianinfo2 lacks the English-language comprehension skills to be able to participate collaboratively. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 13:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::Editing the English-language Wikipedia requires English competence, which this user clearly lacks. Running text from the Indonesian Wikipedia through a translator or an AI-bullshit generator and then posting it on the English Wikipedia while simultaneously saying "yuk yuk yuk, my English is pretty bad" is absolutely counterproductive. Ban him and move on; nothing of value will be lost. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 17:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah, it is indeed counterproductive. But it’s not like “nothing of value will be lost”, I see an editor who is willing to contribute but lacks the competence required to edit here; they don’t know English language. I think I see value in the spirit they have, so yeah, all the same, it all falls back to the fact that they can’t contribute here which is bad for English Wikipedia. Sadly, there’re no provisions for how to write in English on Wikimedia. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 19:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, you're right; he should take that willingness to help to the Indonesian Wikipedia. But without the AI generator. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 19:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:Why do so many people who lack fluency in writing English insist on creating articles in the English Wikipedia? I'm pretty fluent in spoken Polish (I've been speaking it most days for nearly half a century and can pass for a native speaker for a couple of minutes), but my writing is not perfectly fluent so I wouldn't dream of creating an article in the Polish Wikipedia. People should pay the readers of the English Wikipedia the same respect. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 22:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::Whether we like it or not, English Wikipedia is the biggest Wikipedia and one of the most read encyclopedia online, it sort of adds visibility to any subject hence I think why everyone wants to contribute. We cannot say same for say Polish Wikipedia. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 22:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::There are, depending on definitions, something approaching 1 Billion people who claim to have at least ''some'' nominal proficiency in English as a second/learned language. Some are undoubtedly as proficient as native English speakers. Some are 'proficient' only in the sense that they think they are. In between lies a whole swathe of individuals who's actual abilities and perceived abilities may not coincide. The advent of machine translation, and later LLM's, encourages some with very marginal English-speaking proficiency to attempt to make up for their deficiencies via software. As we have found time and time again, this doesn't work. We probably need a more systematic approach to tackling this problem, as it is only going to get worse. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

===Indonesianinfo2 is still expecting other people to clear up their mess, and seems to think that ignoring everything will make it go away. ===
See this post on [[User:GoingBatty]]'s page yesterday, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoingBatty&diff=prev&oldid=1298054186], and this one on mine today. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Wikipedia_report_error] Given what I wrote in this ANI thread (the only interaction I've had with Indonesianinfo2) I'd assume that I was being trolled if it weren't for their earlier admission [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlack_Kite&diff=1297938519&oldid=1297937930] that they don't understand what is being written about them. There appears to be no recognition of the mess they are creating with their continuing edits (see the slew of citation errors here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alliance_of_Political_Parties_Supporting_Ganjar_Pranowo&diff=1298221012&oldid=1291903311], and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coalition_of_Change_for_Unity&diff=1298212739&oldid=1291828605]), presumably because they can't understand the error messages they generate). This has clearly now gone way beyond a simple communication problem though. It is outright disruptive for anyone to behave like this, and at this point, I think we should be looking at an indefinite block. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
: For editors that cannot read slang-Indonesian, they are canvassing (essentially) random users to become their meatpuppet ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brigandeur&diff=prev&oldid=1298280118]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baqotun0023&diff=prev&oldid=1298273933]), intentionally adding an image they know to be incorrect under the basis of "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_House_of_Representatives&diff=prev&oldid=1298207025 but then why do we have the image? might as well put it here]"; and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jauhsekali&diff=prev&oldid=1298257635 providing a (admittedly extremely uncredible) legal threat]. The user clearly has no competence in even basic Wikipedia rules, and does not have enough competence in English to improve within a reasonable timeframe. If no action is taken, the Indonesian WikiProject might find itself flooded with extremely poor-quality content. Someone mentioned above that "nothing of value would be lost" - pretty much agree. [[User:Juxlos|Juxlos]] ([[User talk:Juxlos|talk]]) 15:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::Given the continued evidence of [[WP:CIR|not having sufficient ability in English to contribute here]], and especially the clear attempts to [[WP:PROXYING|recruit proxies to dodge their pblock]], I've changed their block to sitewide indef. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== Disruptive editing and bludgeoning by Kharbaan Ghaltaan ==

{{User links|Kharbaan Ghaltaan}} won't stop [[WP:BLUDGEONING]] the RfC at [[Talk:Saddam Hussein]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1297779945][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1297628916][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1296815528][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1296505699][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1296241593][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1296241275][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1296221503][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1296216121] despite being warned against doing so multiple times. They're leaving duplicate votes, repeatedly replying to other votes and telling editors why their choice is wrong. Given this pattern of disruption, I suggest they be topic banned from [[Saddam Hussein]] or Iraq-related articles. On Saddam Hussein, they've repeatedly reinstated their preferred edits despite multiple reverts. Their edits included loads of spelling and grammar errors,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1284990549][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1286354290][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=1269898610&oldid=1269869543][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq&diff=1284699576&oldid=1284204417] requiring extensive cleanup from other editors.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1270078182][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1285113933] They've made similar disruptive edits on [[Iraq]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq&diff=1284699576&oldid=1284204417] and repeatedly bloated the article unnecessarily.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=1292728685][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=1293725715] [[User:Skitash|Skitash]] ([[User talk:Skitash|talk]]) 16:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:I never forced anyone to support my view in the RfC. I just gave my opinion like others did. In fact, I also supported some people's comments too. If I said I disagreed with someone, it was just part of the discussion — not to tell them they are wrong or force anything. If I replied to others, it was only to discuss my view — not to attack or dismiss anyone’s view. Whatever consensus adopted and finalize the resolution and wherever they reach, I would accept it. After @[[User:Abo Yemen|Abo Yemen]] told me about it, I stopped doing it. 
:About the grammar and spelling mistakes, yes, I admit that I made some errors. But that doesn’t mean I was trying to harm the page. If something was not written well, it could have just been improved or fixed — not used as a reason to suggest banning me. I’ve seen many others do the same — make mistakes, then fix or improve them with help from others.
:Also, I haven’t made any edits to the ''Saddam Hussein'' page or any other Iraq-related major article for weeks now. I’ve stayed away on purpose, waiting for the RfC to be over. I’ve only shared thoughts on the talk page and have been working in my sandbox on related content.
:I only spoke on the talk page, and I’ve been working on related topics in my sandbox, not in the main articles. You can check here [[Special:Contributions/Kharbaan Ghaltaan|Here]]
:I know I’ve made mistakes, but I’m trying to do better. I’m open to working with others, following the rules, and building consensus. I hope we can sort this out without a topic ban, and I’m ready to cooperate with the community however needed.
: ----
:Thank you 
:*
:[[User:Kharbaan Ghaltaan|Kharbaan Ghaltaan]] ([[User talk:Kharbaan Ghaltaan|talk]]) 21:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::This response was hatted because of suspicions that it was AI-generated. I think it is more important to allow the editor's opinion to be presented, otherwise it looks like they didn't respond to this complaint. It looks like you were censoring an editor who was being complained about. You can tolerate a brief LLM response. Please do not obscure their response by hatting their words. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::If you were talking to me, i wasn't the one who hatted it. [[User:PerryPerson|PerryPerson]] ([[User talk:PerryPerson|talk]]) 05:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Why would I think that, you haven't even commented in this discussion, [[User:PerryPerson|PerryPerson]]. I don't care who hatted it and I understand why comments that are longer and more rambling are hatted sometimes, I just don't think that is necessary in this instance. I also hope editors active on ANI realize that when they hat remarks, they are silencing an editor. The disruptiveness of the content has to be worth the imposition of silence. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Ah. [[User:PerryPerson|PerryPerson]] ([[User talk:PerryPerson|talk]]) 17:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1297888366 this diff] probably caused you to be pinged instead of KG when Liz replied to KG (as an aside, you generally should avoid editing others' signatures and timestamps). —[[User:TonySt|<span style="border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;font-weight:bold;background:linear-gradient(255deg,#96C, #6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">tony</span>]] 17:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Sorry. It was way ahead and it was always showing "Just now", so I had to edit it so new "Just now" topics or replies will appear. [[User:PerryPerson|PerryPerson]] ([[User talk:PerryPerson|talk]]) 17:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::I didn't understand [[User:Kharbaan Ghaltaan|Kharbaan Ghaltaan]] ([[User talk:Kharbaan Ghaltaan|talk]]) 14:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Liz|Liz]] see [[Talk:India#This article doesn't follow FA trends]]. More use of LLM.. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 07:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::: Yes, that was before this report, but I've AI-hatted, because just look at the English in the later reply that KG clearly ''did'' write ({{tq| I am saying peoples' images in this article is totally of dull personality and representation}}). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::They're still using an LLM to generate their talk page comments.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=1298304629] You can see the contrast between their usual writing style ("Histroy", "This is main section covers about politics", "This section have two subsections") and the sudden shifts into a formal tone, their [[Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI catchphrases#Lists|use of lists]], and the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI catchphrases#Spaced em dash|excessive use of spaced em dashes]]. [[User:Skitash|Skitash]] ([[User talk:Skitash|talk]]) 19:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::This is totally without LLM. I have wrote it by my own [[User:Kharbaan Ghaltaan|Kharbaan Ghaltaan]] ([[User talk:Kharbaan Ghaltaan|talk]]) 19:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== New SPAs, possibly socks? ==
{{atop|result=Questions about sockpuppetry should be raised at [[WP:SPI]], not [[WP:ANI]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)}}
It would be useful to get more eyes on the following [[WP:SPA]]s:

* {{usersummary|Jercikade}}
* {{usersummary|Korpace}}

Not sure if they are socks for the previously-banned SPAs of {{u|DonaldJuniorTrump}}, {{u|Truthpedic}}, {{u|Liberty666}}, and {{u|Free258}}, but they seem to be pushing the exact same POV content using the same recycled phrasing and sources. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 21:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:I’d like to clarify that I’m not a sockpuppet of any previously blocked accounts. I’m a good-faith contributor who is genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia and building high-quality, neutral, and well-sourced content.
:If some of the sources or phrasing in my draft appear similar to older material, it’s purely coincidental or due to the limited pool of reliable references available on this topic. I’m very open to feedback and would appreciate any guidance on how to improve the article and ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing standards.
:Let’s work together to make the content better for everyone. Thank you. [[User:Korpace|Korpace]] ([[User talk:Korpace|talk]]) 02:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::Please don't insult us by posting obviously AI-generated baloney here. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Amigao|Amigao]], if you're accusing them of being socks then [[WP:SPI]] is the venue you may be looking for. —[[User:TonySt|<span style="border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;font-weight:bold;background:linear-gradient(30deg,#96C, #6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">tony</span>]] 02:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== IP 49.178.197.204 doing disruptive bad faith edits ==
{{atop|status=Blocked|{{nac}} [[WP:AIV]] is over there → [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|AlphaBetaGamma]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/report any mistakes here]]) </small> 00:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC) }}
This IP is doing vandalism across multiple pages as can be confirmed by the users contribution history below. [[Special:Contributions/49.178.197.204]]

Admins please look onto it.
Thank you.
[[User:Editking100|Editking100]] ([[User talk:Editking100|talk]]) 22:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @[[User:Editking100|Editking100]] -- this is not the right place. Obvious vandalism should be reported at [[WP:AIV]], though it looks like the user's last edit was 36+ hours ago. If they vandalize again soon, please report to [[WP:AIV]] as having vandalized after final warning. —[[User:TonySt|<span style="border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;font-weight:bold;background:linear-gradient(345deg,#86C, #6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">tony</span>]] 23:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay got it. Thank you for letting me know this [[User:TonySt]]. 
[[User:Editking100|Editking100]] ([[User talk:Editking100|talk]]) 23:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Kelpongames continued disruptive editing ==


*{{userlinks|Kelpongames}}

User continues to edit in the same disruptive way despite advice and warnings from multiple users at their talk page. Their edits have been reverted countless times (nearly every since contribution has been reverted) from multiple different users. They continue to persist with edits that goes against consensus and project norms. [[User:DaHuzyBru|DaHuzyBru]] ([[User talk:DaHuzyBru|talk]]) 01:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:Some example diffs of Kelpongames making continuous anti-consensus and anti-project infobox changes e.g. adding years next to high school, adding "high school" to the high school field, changing "player" to the player's position in the lead and short description [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikola_Vu%C4%8Devi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=1297736785] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Thibodeau&diff=prev&oldid=1297730119] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onyeka_Okongwu&diff=prev&oldid=1297291977] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onyeka_Okongwu&diff=prev&oldid=1297807321]. All the while, despite being asked to stop multiple times, they continue to edit in the same way. Their talk page responses are perplexing, failing to acknowledge the vast content reverts or willingness to concede. [[User:DaHuzyBru|DaHuzyBru]] ([[User talk:DaHuzyBru|talk]]) 02:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, they've been appending "High School" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kel%27el_Ware&diff=prev&oldid=1297275918 since June 25]. The issue was raised at {{section link|User_talk:Kelpongames#Basketball infobox}}. But they've continued without establishing a new consensus. They have also not participated at {{section link|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Player_article_style_changes}}, a thread about their changes ([[User_talk:Kelpongames#Discussion_at_WT:NBA_§_Player_article_style_changes|notification]]). —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 03:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Kelpongames has been continuously dismissive about needing to gain consensus for their contested changes:
*June 27: {{tqq|At the end of the day I’m not changing what’s written rather how it’s written to structured}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelpongames&diff=prev&oldid=1297646126]
*June 28: {{tqq|These are small edits it’s not gonna impact much of what you looked for to even create the page.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelpongames&diff=prev&oldid=1297806761]
*June 29: {{tqq|... I did not change much}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelpongames&diff=prev&oldid=1297861437]
—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 03:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:I left a message on their User talk page that I hope gets through. This seems like a whole lot of anguish over differences of opinion in formatting but if a standard is the consensus, than this is the style we all need to use. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

== User:Ghghgh99 seems to be WP:NOTHERE ==
{{atop|result=Editor blocked. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)}}
The user [[User:Ghghgh99]], maked 3 reverted edits, and seems being [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:PixelWhite|PixelWhite]] ([[User talk:PixelWhite|talk]]) 02:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Joyous!]] already blocked this editor for vandalism. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Constant edits by blocked IP ==
{{atop|result=Problem addressed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)}}
[[User:183.177.226.26]] is constantly editing their user talk, possibly to try and overload or prevent people from editing it or adding new warnings, but I have been reverting it. Requesting TPA removal. Thanks. [[User:PerryPerson|PerryPerson]] ([[User talk:PerryPerson|talk]]) 04:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::Not sure what they're trying to accomplish. [[User:Bringingthewood|Bringingthewood]] ([[User talk:Bringingthewood|talk]]) 04:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Me too. [[User:PerryPerson|PerryPerson]] ([[User talk:PerryPerson|talk]]) 04:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*{{done}} This wasn't an urgent or disruptive incident. For situations like this, I'd recommend contacting an admin you might know, not opening a case on ANI which is for more serious problems. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Nicknames03 ==
{{atop|User blocked indefinitely from article space, pending acknowledgement of the issue and commitment to end the problematic behaviour. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 11:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)}}

* {{userlinks|Nicknames03}}

This editor has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nicknames03#June_2025 warned] countless times recently to stop overlinking (also for other problematic edits) but they are still continuing to do this. No response on their talk page. In fact, every single edit of theirs is to mainspace. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 05:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, i'll second this; i reverted one edit that appeared on my watchlist, took a look at the contributions, and i have now reverted another, maybe, dozen edits which added wlinks unnecessarily, before coming here..  If Nickames03 does not respond, a pblock from mainspace may be necessary to grab their attention  ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 10:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::It is a bit bizarre because a few days ago they decided to mass remove links ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamfiruz-e_Shomali_District&diff=prev&oldid=1297348453 example]) and now they are doing the complete opposite. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 10:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::[[WP:EASTEREGG]] linking the nationality American to DAB page [[Americana]] like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Morris_Hunt&diff=prev&oldid=1297830235 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Eakins&diff=prev&oldid=1297829450 here] is really bad and displays a distinct lack of clue. They presumably intend [[Americana (culture)]], but that would still be wrong. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 16:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::To be fair, i think that may be a typo ~ i've noticed them make several typos and then correct them in the next edit; possibly they didn't notice they'd hit the "a" instead of the "s" they intended in the William Morris Hunt diff (your second diff doesn't show "Americana" at all; the introduced wlink goes to [[Americans]]).  I agree, though, on the lack of clue diagnosis  ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 21:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Still no response or change in behavior.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Cocteau&diff=prev&oldid=1298119235][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcel_Proust&diff=prev&oldid=1298119111][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucien_Daudet&diff=prev&oldid=1298119042] Can an admin p-block them from mainspace please? [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 18:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Still ongoing...[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Orwell&diff=prev&oldid=1298142973] [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 10:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== Ksorari, persistent UPE editing and copyright violations ==

* {{user|Ksorari}}

Ksorari registered in 2022, but had only a few edits until two weeks ago, when they created [[Draft:Gaadi Number 1760]] about a recent film. They have stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gaadi_Number_1760&diff=prev&oldid=1296836696 in a comment on the draft itself] that they are the producer of the movie, but have made no formal declaration of their paid COI despite [[User talk:Ksorari#June 2025|warnings on their user talk page]], including a final warning. The draft has been declined seven times; after the latest decline (and after the final UPE warning), Ksorari simply moved it to mainspace—I've draftified it again.

Ksorari has also restored copyrighted text with minimal surface changes, twice after two revdels. They have been warned about this as well, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ksorari&diff=prev&oldid=1296343805] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ksorari&diff=prev&oldid=1296696822], but ignored it, apart from saying in the draft comment linked above that it is "their text".

[irrelevant comment redacted]

Since Ksorari hasn't responded to anything on their user talk page ever, but is apparently aware of it, I saw no way forward other than to take them here. They are apparently only interested in using Wikipedia for promotion.
--''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 08:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:I removed the aside whose only purpose seemed to be to mock the language abiities of the editor involved here. We want them to participate in this discussion, not ridicule them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::That was really, '''really''' not it. But whatever, I accept the rebuke. Any comments on the actual report? --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 05:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

== Sibbleiue impersonating an admin ==
{{atop|status=blocked|result={{nac}} Blocked as LTA by [[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] —[[User:TonySt|<span style="border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;font-weight:bold;background:linear-gradient(240deg,#96C, #6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">tony</span>]] 16:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{u5|Sibbleiue}}
*{{u5|174.229.242.24}}

This user is impersonating {{u|Discospinster}} in order to close AFD discussions. They're doing this both on this account and on the IP (sometimes they'll make a trivial edit on the IP afterwards in order to 'hide' the initial close from watchlists). — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 12:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:This was dealt with several hours ago.--— [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 15:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

Might a feed of AfD closes help to prevent this sort of abuse?<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:An edit filter to flag IP / new accounts closing AfDs could be another idea. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 19:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::This came up recently. IPs are not allowed to close AfDs. An edit filter to outright stop this would be desirable. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::FYI, this is an LTA known as 'BuickCenturyDriver'. —&nbsp;[[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP&nbsp;499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 12:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] There are two filters designed to catch that. As I understand it, one is set to disallow, but as a result LTA's have been able to figure out how to work around it, and one is set to log only. {{u|Zzuuzz}}, you might want to look into the IP edits from [[Special:Contributions/174.229.209.183]], which get caught by your filter when testing it against the history of the AfD they tried to close, but don't show up in the filter logs and were somehow still allowed. <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</b>]])</span> 21:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

== Persistent addition of unsourced material at [[Antolín Pulido]] ==
{{atop|status=blocked|result= Blocked by [[User:Discospinster]] [[User:Rusalkii|<span style="color:#1C7E85"><b>Rusalkii</b></span>]] ([[User talk:Rusalkii|talk]]) 01:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC))}}
An anonymous user, [[User:95.60.13.200|95.60.13.200]], has been persistently re-adding unsourced (and I would say unverifiable) content to the above article. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antol%C3%ADn_Pulido&diff=1297316964&oldid=1297311480 diff 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antol%C3%ADn_Pulido&diff=1297385151&oldid=1297356064 diff 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antol%C3%ADn_Pulido&diff=1297913479&oldid=1297490890 diff 3] etc, full record [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antol%C3%ADn_Pulido&action=history here]). User has been engaged [[Talk:Antolín Pulido#Unsourced additions|on article talk page]] and [[User talk:95.60.13.200#June 2025|user talk page]] (by [[User:Augmented Seventh]]) but has not responded, apart from one edit summary in which they said:
* {{tq|Antolín Pulido does not usually collect verified information of his achievements as he is far beyond that. While it may not be verified, it is true and we should not interfere with someone who has been called "the hope of the oppressed"}} - suggesting conscious [[WP:V]] violation, [[WP:PROMO]], [[WP:COI]] and possibly [[WP:AUTOBIO]]. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] ([[User talk:Jdcooper|talk]]) 14:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|While it may not be verified, it is true}}. Just like the fact that the moon is made of green cheese. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Possibly hacked editor? ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MagicatthemovieS MagicatthemovieS] has just unexplainably started vandalising the Donald Trump page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1297976345&oldid=1297920089 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1297976864&oldid=1297976680 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1297977362&oldid=1297977042 3]), including requests to be blocked for vandalism. The user has about 100k edits and a relatively clean log so I'm not sure if this is a hacking situation or an editor gone rogue but I'm raising it here anyway. Feel free to move if in the wrong place. '''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 19:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have blocked as a possibly compromised account. After a brief look, appears to be very out of character. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 20:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::And we were having so much fun reverting. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 20:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I've interacted with the user for around 5 years. These edits are definitely uncharacteristic of the demeanor I'm familiar with. Unfortunately, I have no way of contacting them off-site, and am not confident that the email currently listed on their user page via the "Email this user" feature is their real email address. Isn't there something admins can do to confirm if the account is hacked? Compare the recent IPs? Check logs to confirm if the email address/password has been changed recently? [[User:Homeostasis07|Homeostasis07]] ([[User talk:Homeostasis07|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Homeostasis07|contributions]]) 00:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Admins do not have this ability but in the past I've seen checkusers confirm or not confirm whether or not an account is compromised. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Without giving away personal info, it does not appear that the account was compromised. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 00:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::If I'm not mistaken, I believe Spicy confirmed it this way when I made a logged-out report that my account had been compromised a few months ago. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 01:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::*Keep in mind that a checkuser can only confirm whether the account was compromised by someone logging into it from the wrong location, not eg. a child or somesuch comes across their logged-in computer. Anyway, one oddity is that after their block they [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalContributions/MagicatthemovieS kept making legitimate edits on commons for a while while also vandalizing it] (see all the non-Trump-related edits, which seem fine, compared to the Trump ones.) The vandalism and legit edits were at different times, which makes me suspect that the issue is a device they left logged-in that someone else is using. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 17:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::*:Or someone else gained access to the password or session authentication token and used it to sign into the account on a device of their choice. [[Special:Contributions/50.75.177.210|50.75.177.210]] ([[User talk:50.75.177.210|talk]]) 20:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::*:I have blocked them on Commons as well. Please ping me if they are able to restore secure access to their account. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 21:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

== 1 TRACE ==
{{atop|status=Socks washed|1=Sock blocked by {{noping|Izno}}. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{articlelinks|1 TRACE}}
*{{articlelinks|Draft:1 TRACE (OSINT)}}
*{{userlinks|AliveNull}}
The article [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 TRACE|was deleted]], and today I see it popped up as [[Draft:1 TRACE (OSINT)]] by a fresh new account {{User|AliveNull}}. I suspect a sock. Can an admin check who wrote [[1 TRACE]]?  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 01:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:Written by two socks of [[User:Btw Santhosh]]: [[User:Kingmatrix]] and [[User:Markeste02]]. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 02:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:Right. I added to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Btw Santhosh]].  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 02:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Diademchild ==
{{atop|status=Indeffed|{{nac}} Blocked by SarekOfVulcan for TBAN violations. [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|AlphaBetaGamma]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/report any mistakes here]]) </small> 07:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Diademchild}} was conditionally unblocked on [[Special:Diff/1287224310|April 24th, 2025]] as a result of accepting a three-month [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] from all pages relating to biographies of living persons. They almost immediately violated their TBAN with edits to {{xt|[[Nia Sanchez]]}} ({{diff2|1287229719|1273364156|diff}}), {{xt|[[Diamante (musician)]]}} ({{diff2|1287368215|diff}}), and {{xt|[[Kae Kurd]]}} ({{diff2|1287368963|diff}}). More recently, they have made extensive edits at {{xt|[[Talk:Amouranth]]}} ([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Diademchild/1/Amouranth/2025-04-25 here]) and {{xt|[[Bonnie Blue (actress)]]}} (both [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Diademchild/0/Bonnie_Blue_%28actress%29/2025-04-25 article] and [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Diademchild/1/Bonnie_Blue_%28actress%29/2025-04-25 talk page]). In fact, most of [[Special:Contributions/Diademchild|their recent contributions]] consist of adding birth dates and other biographical trivia to articles, including BLPs.

Diademchild has made several dismissive comments toward the subjects of ongoing disputes at the [[WP:BLP/N|biographies of living persons noticeboard]], such as {{tqqi|[[Special:Permalink/1297864510#c-Diademchild-20250628222500-Sangdeboeuf-20250628211900|there doesn’t need to be [reliable sources], because this female subject isn’t (that) societally important/respected/valuable]]}}, even after receiving a [[Special:Permalink/1230363055#Introduction_to_contentious_topics|contentious topics alert]]. To me this suggests a [[WP:NOTHERE]] mentality as well. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 01:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:Blocked indef for multiple BLP violations. If people think indef is too much, let me know. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 02:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]], definitely not too much. See comment below. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Note''': I see that Diademchild's first TBAN violations were already noted at {{u|asilvering}}'s user talk page [[User talk:Asilvering/Archive 18#Immediate TBAN breach by Diademchild|back in April]]. Posting here for future reference. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 03:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Diademchild also {{diff2|1287546264|deleted}} {{diff2|1287546978|two messages}} on their user talk page indicating they were aware of the TBAN violation. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 04:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Paper9oll – Inappropriate tone and conduct during image discussion (now closed) ==

'''Issue:''' I am submitting this report to document a pattern of dismissive and borderline uncivil behavior by User:Paper9oll during a now-concluded discussion over the infobox image in the [[Kim Hye-yoon]] article. While the content matter has been resolved, I believe the user’s tone and engagement style violated Wikipedia’s expectations around WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and may warrant administrative attention to prevent recurrence.

'''Context:''' During the image discussion on the article’s talk page, the user made several comments that were passive-aggressive, sarcastic, and dismissive of collaborative input. Examples include:

> "either this or this would be acceptable options — take it or leave it."

> "I won't be surprised if..." (followed by a sarcastic prediction)

> "If there is no intention to work towards consensus when we are already close, then so be it."

> "I'm not interested in engaging in unnecessary back-and-forth... if the goal is to 'find a winner', then sadly, I'm not the editor you're looking for."

These remarks were not isolated but part of a pattern that undermined civil discourse and discouraged consensus-building. The language used is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s principles of assuming good faith and maintaining a collegial editing environment.

'''What I’m asking for:''' As the issue itself is closed, I’m not seeking sanctions, but I do think a formal reminder or administrative note on the importance of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF would be appropriate. I hope this helps prevent similar issues in future discussions involving this user. [[User:Resurehtonatsuj|Resurehtonatsuj]] ([[User talk:Resurehtonatsuj|talk]]) 03:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:Resurehtonatsuj|Resurehtonatsuj]], per instructions, it is required that you notify the person via their talk page if you start a discussion about someone at this page. I have done that for you now. —[[User:TonySt|<span style="border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;font-weight:bold;background:linear-gradient(45deg,#06C, #6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">tony</span>]] 03:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Resurehtonatsuj}}, as it says at the very top, {{tpq|This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.}} In other words, this page is ''not'' for discussing closed matters or a single conversation that you found unpleasant. While I agree that Paper9oll was somewhat curt and dismissive with you, there is nothing in the quotes that you presented that requires the attention of an administrator. Although you wrote {{tpq|These remarks were not isolated but part of a pattern}}, you have not presented evidence of any such pattern. There are many forms of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] available to you. ANI should be a last resort, not a first resort. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, ideally one should write something themselves instead of using a [[WP:BLADERUNNER|LLM]]. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 08:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] Okay noted, rather than looking back on past behaviour issues, I'll proceed with [[WP:DR]] if the user's behaviour continues instead. Thank you. [[User:Resurehtonatsuj|Resurehtonatsuj]] ([[User talk:Resurehtonatsuj|talk]]) 10:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::[[User:Resurehtonatsuj]] - Did you use a [[large language model]] to compose your original post?  If so, that is far more serious than rudeness.  If so, just [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|drop the stick]] so that your own conduct can be overlooked.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

== 191.109.82.27 ==

{{atop|status=Blocked|{{nac}} It has been '''0''' days since the last report of genre warriors. [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|AlphaBetaGamma]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/report any mistakes here]]) </small> 07:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC) }}
{{vandal|191.109.82.27}} continuing to change sourced genres on various music articles despite having warnings up to level 4 by several other editors. I went to submit this to [[WP:AIV]] but there was already a report there from another editor which was dismissed as not obvious vandalism. —[[User:TonySt|<span style="border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;font-weight:bold;background:linear-gradient(45deg,#06C, #6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">tony</span>]] 03:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:Given a two week break. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 05:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Removal of properly sourced text, POV pushing, probably sockpuppet ==

@[[User:Amir.RostamDoost|Amir.RostamDoost]] is a recent iteration of several IPs removing [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_al-Sistani&diff=prev&oldid=1297473828] a properly sourced edit at [[Ali al-Sistani]] after the page in question was protected for violations of [[WP:BLP]] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_al-Sistani&diff=prev&oldid=1297382784]. Probably a sockpuppet. [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 09:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] If you are accusing them of sockpuppetry then [[WP:SPI]] is probably the venue you're looking for. —[[User:TonySt|<span style="border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;font-weight:bold;background:linear-gradient(180deg,#06C, #6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">tony</span>]] 12:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:TonySt|TonySt]], SPI isn't going to do anything about someone who was editing as an IP, was not blocked, and is now editing as an account. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 14:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

== Editing related to David Woodard ==

After a week of investigating why the article on David Woodard had the most translations of any Wikipedia article, I came across a network of accounts and IP proxies which demonstrated a clear intent to promote Woodard as far and wide as possible. My [[:meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Cross-wiki self-promotion campaign|initial post on Wikimedia Meta]] resulted in over 200 of the articles being deleted, and a slew of single-purpose accounts being globally blocked. In my [[User:Grnrchst/David Woodard report|full report which I have published in my user space]], and in a [[Talk:David_Woodard#Report on enwiki's David Woodard_article|subsequent report on persistent problematic editing on the enwiki article]], I concluded that the following enwiki users were involved:
*{{user2|Swmmng}}
*{{user2|BarunH}}
*{{user2|BardRapt}}
*{{user2|CWells}}
*{{user2|FlenBotoz}}
*{{user2|Judgtastic}}
*{{user2|Špačkovití}}

After consulting [[User:asilvering|asilvering]] for their advice as an administrator, I'm coming to ANI to raise this with other enwiki administrators. I personally believe that each of these users should be blocked over this editing behaviour, and that the English Wikipedia's article on [[David Woodard]] should be put under [[WP:ECP|extended-confirmed protection]] for at least a year, but I defer to your judgement on how best to proceed. I'm more than willing to answer any questions you may have and provide specific data points (many of which you can see [https://cryptpad.fr/sheet/#/2/sheet/edit/KOM3oxm0wpVb6ntUzK7045wa/ in this Cryptpad spreadsheet]). --[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 12:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'll file an SPI on this so we have a paper trail where people are likely to be looking for one. 
:Also, fun one in the deleted revisions for Barun H: [[Joseph A. Stirt]]. {{tq|Beginning in 2004 Stirt has actively published ''bookofjoe'', his popular blog covering a wide range of interests—"fashion, medicine, art, history, design, poetry, books, movies, sports, inventions (my own and those of others), writing, science, food, technology, cars, current events… you name it." Subjects have included, among many others, [[Steve Wozniak]], [[Treadmill|treadmills]], [[Ketamine#Depression|ketamine for depression]], [[David Woodard]], and [[water scarcity]].}} -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 14:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

== User Chuck Bartowski (Charles Carmichael) ==
{{atop|1=Indef'd. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{user|Chuck Bartowski (Charles Carmichael)}}

Appears to be [[WP:NOTHERE]]. I don't know why {{they|Chuck Bartowski (Charles Carmichael)}} wasn't considered for a block after the very first edits from this account back in October. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 15:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:I didn't want to block until I saw what happened with the Only Warning, but... no. Just, no. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 16:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Reverts from article format prescribed by MOS:GEOCOMMA followed by WP:GAMING ==
{{user|Amakuru}}

I recently moved 10 mayoral election articles because their names did not follow the [[MOS:GEOCOMMA]] part of the Manual of Style. Amakuru today moved them back to the format violating MOS:GEOCOMMA, referring to a discussion on local talkpage, as if such a discussion can override the Manual of Style. It should be noted that the MoS does not mention an exception for article titles, and thus there isn't one.

In another discussion, on [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#RfC re: proposed proposed new naming convention for local elections]], I started a discussion, proposing a new format for local elections. The discussion was snow closed as '''opposed'''. I obviously respect that outcome.

There was also another, parallel discussion – actually, there is where the discussion started (it's in the collapsed part) – which involved the closing comma for parentheticals, you know, that which MOS:GEOCOMMA prescribes. Amakuru apparently [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|doesn't like the comma]] and said that.

Amakuru has now reverted my 10 moves to the format without the closing comma – reminder: it violates MOS:GEOCOMMA – without a discussion, referring to an old RM on a local article talkpage ([[Talk:2015 Columbus, Ohio mayoral election#Requested move 28 November 2016]]), where moves from one "old-style" name format (with the year last, and without the closing comma) to a format '''with''' the comma, but still "old-style" with the year last, was requested. The RM was closed as "not moved".

After I noticed that Amakuru had reverted my moves, I contacted him on [[User talk:Amakuru|his talkpage]], pointing out what the Manual of Style says, that discussions on local talkpages (obviously) cannot override the Manual of Style, and that if he does not agree with the MoS, he has to start a centralized discussion there, rather than objecting or opposing on dozens and dozens of local talkpages. (I didn't say the last part.)

By the way, there are also local talkpages where discussions on the closing comma have ended with the MoS prevailing.

Finally, I asked if he will self-revert, or if I will have to revert his moves back to the MoS-prescribed format.

Soon after he read that, he started editing the redirects that were created (or re-created) as a result of his page moves, with the effect that moves to the correct format can only be done by admins. These actions constitute [[WP:GAMING|gaming the system]].

[[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 17:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
: I know the pettiest things in the world feel like they're incredibly important when you're deep in them, but I think it would be best to just forget about this. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 17:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::Amakuru's conduct, which is what should be discussed here, is not a petty thing. The comma discussion should take place on some MoS talkpage. [[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 17:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{tqd|"he started editing the redirects that were created (or re-created) as a result of his page moves, with the effect that moves to the correct format can only be done by admins"}}: can you explain this part a little more? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::He added "R from alternate punctuation", which also has the effect of blocking non-admins from undoing the move. [[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 18:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::News to me! How so? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::There is often an old redirect "in the way" when you try to move an article back to a previous title. If the redirect has not been edited, it can be deleted to make way for the move. If it has been edited, it can't, unless you're an admin. [[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 18:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Oh, that I knew. Any page mover should be able to move over the redirect. Regardless, since your initial bold moves were undone, anyone (regardless of whether they have the page mover right) would want to avoid moving them back without discussion. 
:::::Since the redirect categories appear appropriate on first glance, I don't see that the charge of gaming is supported. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::You knew that, and still claim that "[a]ny page mover should be able to move over the redirect"? No, any page mover can't if the redirect has been edited, unless they have admin rights.
::::::Regardless, the edits may look appropriate, but they were made just for the purpose of stopping other people from moving the articles to the format required by MoS. That constitues gaming, and editors have been blocked for that. [[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 19:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::: Huh. I thought page movers had that ability. Can someone else confirm either way? Rest of my point still stands, and I don't think you're correct about A's motivation here. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 21:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] Any page mover can do a [[WP:SWAP]], which has the same end result of undoing the move. <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</b>]])</span> 21:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|[T]he edits may look appropriate, but they were made just for the purpose of stopping other people from moving the articles[...]}} -- this is a serious allegation. Do you have any evidence, or is this just [[WP:CASTING]]? —[[User:TonySt|<span style="border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;font-weight:bold;background:linear-gradient(0deg,#16C, #6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">tony</span>]] 00:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Amakuru just indirectly admitted on his talkpage that he gamed the system. [[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 20:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That's starting to skirt close to [[WP:NPA]]. Please don't put words in other editors' mouths. [[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 20:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::hmm... On the other hand, admins have had used [[WP:RMUM]] to justify blocks on others who were like you, seeking to revert a reverted move. If you had moved the articles enmasse again, who would likely be blocked isn't him, but you and with a greater livelihood. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 20:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::: I don't read his comment that way at all, and I don't think it's reasonable to interpret it that way. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 21:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I think there's about to be a second Arb case regarding the interaction of the MOS and AT, and the way people handle the discussions therefore, so you might want to keep the temperature down. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 20:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I don't have much to say beyond the thoughts of those above, and what I've already said to HandsomeFella on my talk page. They made a set of bold moves and I reverted them per [[WP:RMUM]]. I also later tagged the resulting redirects with {{tl|R from alternative punctuation}}, which is pretty commonplace for such redirects where they are from a minor variation in such punctuation, that's what the template is for I think? I added that when I saw HandsomeFella's comment because their comment reminded me that I'd forgotten to do it earlier. (And by the way, a page mover can still perform a move on such a page - they do so via the [[WP:Page swap]] mechanism). Anyway, HandsomeFella asked me to revert myself, which I'm not going to do, since [[WP:RMUM]] supports my right to revert an undiscussed move, and they also said in their opening comment {{xt|"will I have to revert you?"}} which sounds to me like a threat to [[WP:Move war]] over this issue, so I also reminded them in my most recent talk page comment that reinstating a reverted move is explicitly not permitted by [[WP:RMUM]] and that the next step is to open a full RM discussion. As far as I'm aware I've followed the correct process here. Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 20:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

*You moved pages, boldly. The moves were reverted. That's how the system works. The next step is for '''you''' to [[WP:RM|open a RM]] on the pages you want moved to establish consensus (or not) for the moves you want to make. The next step is ''not'' for you to come to ANI accusing the other editor of bad-faith and gaming. [[WP:STICK|Drop the stick]], and open RMs. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
*:I know how the system works. The moves were reverted in violation of MoS, referring to old cherry-picked discussions in which Amakuru was on the "winning" side. Then he gamed the system, but in a "smart" way. It's naïve to believe otherwise.
*:If I do a bold move, and then immediately edit the redirect that is created in a similar way, will I be shown the same leniency? I guess not. NB: Dolovis was blocked for this.
*:The next step for Amakuru is to start a discussion on Talk:MoS if he objects to grammatically correct article titles. Having discussions on local talkpages overriding the consensus that has created today's MoS? What's next, can we decide on a talk page that "we really don't need WP:RS in this article"? [[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 23:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|HandsomeFella}}, I suppose I wasn't clear in my initial comment above, so let's make this clearer: [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]] or face a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]]. The next step for '''you''' is to either open RMs explaining why the pages' current titles violate MoS and why it should be followed, or walk away from the issue. [[WP:BRD|Bold, revert, discuss]]. The titles may well, as you claim, violate MoS. But once you have made a bold move, and it has been reverted, '''you''' must then discuss, '''not''' them. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::Neither following nor not following any particular interpretation of manual of style gives an exemption from edit warring. If you move an article away from a stable title and someone reverts you, you have exactly two choices: 1. let it go. 2. seek consensus for your preferred title. This applies regardless of what the stable title is. It applies regardless of why you want to move the page. It applies regardless of what the manual style says the title ''should'' be. It applies regardless of what a policy says the title ''should'' be. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
*::Took me a few moments to dig for Dolovis' issue as it was before I became active on wiki. See: [[User_talk:Dolovis/Archive_4#c-Elen_of_the_Roads-2012-01-01T17:47:00.000Z-January_2012]] and two sections up. I have not looked at the AN discussion, but judging from the talk pages, there was other consideration such as an earlier topic ban, and that the block was made possibly in response to gaming around the topic ban among other things. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 01:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:It looks to me like the Arbs are unfortunately trying to dodge the open case request related to MOS as much as possible. I expect they will try to limit that case to only capitalization, if it gets heard at all. [[Special:Contributions/50.75.177.210|50.75.177.210]] ([[User talk:50.75.177.210|talk]]) 21:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:Previous MOS discussion: [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_215#Matching_commas_on_attributive_nouns_in_titles|Matching commas on attributive nouns in titles]]. [[User:Jruderman|Jruderman]] ([[User talk:Jruderman|talk]]) 02:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== User:Heal4one ==
{{atop|1=Indef'd. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Heal4one}}
This user was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHeal4one blocked for 2 weeks] for moving pages to inappropriate namespaces. A few days after the block expired, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&user=Heal4one&type=move moved three pages to the Wikipedia namespace]. They also did not respond to any notifications regarding their page moves. [[User:Annh07|Annh07]] ([[User talk:Annh07|talk]]) 17:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:Heal4one also blanked this thread shortly after being notified. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1298136311] The inappropriate moves continue. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 18:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::Indeffed. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Possible sock farm promoting Paradha film, and it’s director  ==


Hi Team,

*[[Paradha]] film previously Created by sock, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Paradha logs]

*[[Paradha (2025 film)]] page creator and contributor with similar username's "Filmy" and the film release date is not announced fails notability.

*[[user:Chelaam]] created account on 28 june 2025, on same day they [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chelaam uploaded poster] of the film Paradha.

*[[Praveen Kandregula]], director of Paradha film previously created by [[User:Advertite]] which AFD'ed. Now [[User:GSV7]] created on 2024, came now and recreated the Praveen Kandregula on 26 June 2025.

May be they're same farm wanted to create film & director's page.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2409:40F0:1180:BE5C:352D:505:44CE:8EB6|2409:40F0:1180:BE5C:352D:505:44CE:8EB6]] ([[User talk:2409:40F0:1180:BE5C:352D:505:44CE:8EB6#top|talk]]) 18:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Anyone who thinks its should file SPI, Requesting them to do so behalf on this please? [[Special:Contributions/2409:40F0:31D3:23AB:862:9A3:37B3:8037|2409:40F0:31D3:23AB:862:9A3:37B3:8037]] ([[User talk:2409:40F0:31D3:23AB:862:9A3:37B3:8037|talk]]) 12:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== User:Pmbma - complete refusal to use anything other than bare URL references ==
{{atop|status=No violations seen here|1=I'm going to go ahead and close this, as bare URL citations, while certainly not ''preferred'', are absolutely ''allowed'', and a {{tl|minnow}} is probably deserved to a couple of editors here for starting and prolonging this. The side discussion this seems to have evolved into of content and sources is not a matter for ANI either. [[WP:NODEADLINE|There is no deadline]], and you are not obliged to clean up bare URL citations. If you don't want to - don't, and don't poke someone for not using citation templates when there is no policy or guideline requiring them. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Pmbma}} has a history of adding completely [[WP:BURL|bare URL]] citations to articles - I first encountered them doing so in September last year [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1243961163], and they've since been bombarding [[Newcastle International Airport]] with them - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=1298116955&oldid=1297665522], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=next&oldid=1298116955], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=next&oldid=1298118527], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=1298119491&oldid=1298119405], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=1298121177&oldid=1298120712], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=next&oldid=1298121177], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=next&oldid=1298121457], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=next&oldid=1298121837], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=next&oldid=1298121994] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=next&oldid=1298122943]. In the middle of all this, they were requested to use some form of structured citation style on the article talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=next&oldid=1297990253], which they refused [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=next&oldid=1298119089], stating they had limited time in which to add sources. They continued adding bare URLs after this exchange, and despite continued efforts by myself and [[User:10mmsocket]] to clean up after them.

I fully understand, and wholeheartedly applaud, that they are replacing Citation Needed tags here, and I agree with [[WP:BURL]] that a bare URL is better than no citation at all... however, I'm growing concerned with this user's complete and utter refusal to change their style of editing in response to genuine concerns, even after I made them aware back in September [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pmbma&diff=prev&oldid=1243972006] of some of the many easy-to-use tools that automatically generate structured citations at the click of a button. I also do not understand their insistence that there is some kind of [[WP:DEADLINE]], especially when it's been reiterated multiple times that structuring citations adds seconds to the time taken to make an edit.

The net result of this style of editing is that users like myself and 10mmsocket end up running after Pmbma's edits, cleaning up as we go using ReFill and Citation Bot - something that 10mmsocket understandable referred to as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_International_Airport&diff=1298120712&oldid=1298120446 tedious]. I wholeheartedly support and agree with inexperienced users adding bare URL citations in lieu of no citation at all - we all started somewhere, and it takes nothing more than a quick polite note on their talk page and they've learned a new skill in citation structuring. But how can a user that's been here since 2008 and with over 20k edits outright refuse to use structured citations? [[User:Danners430|Danners430]] ([[User talk:Danners430|talk]]) 19:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:I refer you to the essay at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bare_URLs
:In particular, I refer you to the section "What is right with bare URLs?"
:[[User:Pmbma|Pmbma]] ([[User talk:Pmbma|talk]]) 19:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, but the issue under discussion here is clearly covered by the "What is wrong with bare URLs?" section. Please explain how that doesn't apply to you. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 19:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I have limited time in the day. I'm offering to add references where citation-needed has existed for months. Ultimately, does wikipedia want me to volunteer the time I have available, or no time at all ? [[User:Pmbma|Pmbma]] ([[User talk:Pmbma|talk]]) 20:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::In that section: {{tq|However, please note that a bare URL reference is also much less helpful than a fully formatted citation. Please help readers and editors by using full citations instead.}} Editors have asked you to up your game repeatedly. Please don't stick your fingers in your ears and do it. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 19:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Does wikipedia want the references or not ? Or would we prefer to just stick with citation-needed ? I am not an employee of wikipedia - I am a volunteer. [[User:Pmbma|Pmbma]] ([[User talk:Pmbma|talk]]) 20:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::And we are all volunteers as well. What we all are telling is to incorporate citation formatting into your contributions. You think citation formatting is a waste of your time. You are wasting others' time as well to clean up after you. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 20:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Please ban me from wikipedia for life. [[User:Pmbma|Pmbma]] ([[User talk:Pmbma|talk]]) [[User:Pmbma|Pmbma]] ([[User talk:Pmbma|talk]]) 20:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::It is not something bannable or blockable yet. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 20:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am also concerned about his use of sticky notes to sources, like he has done [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perpignan%E2%80%93Rivesaltes_Airport&diff=1297973358&oldid=1283986022 here] and on many articles. Those sticky notes are useless and in fact make the - paper - sources  look less reliable as it seems he has to defend the use of the source. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 19:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:Just a note - I am happy to point Pmbma towards tools that they can use to generate structured citations in seconds, like I have claimed in my original post is possible. I really, really don’t want to lose this editor, as the work they are doing, aside from the small issues that have been raised, is invaluable - I don’t want to go in to airport articles and mass delete unsourced content when someone with better subject knowledge than me knows how to find sources, and that person is Pmbma. They just need to tweak how they’re doing what they’re doing and take other editors’ feedback on board. [[User:Danners430|Danners430]] ([[User talk:Danners430|talk]]) 19:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:At first glance those edits you linked in the first statement here appear to have incrementally improved the articles, which is not something administrators would want to stop. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 20:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::Nothing more than bare URLs are required. Believe me, I've dropped and run enough times that I have no grounds to criticize here. It's better to future-proof the URLs by filling in all the data IF YOU HAVE TIME. If you don't, we'd rather have a reference to improve than nothing, which we'd have to spend more time building from scratch. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 20:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:I think that at least two people here have been behaving rather [[WP:DICK|dickishly]]. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::If I have to actively defend myself in the ANI court for adding references... then I really don't want to be involved in wikipedia. I act out of good faith, give the time I have available and try to add reliable references where either there citation-needed has been present for a few months or no reference has existed for months. If doing this gets me into trouble... then this is not the place for me. [[User:Pmbma|Pmbma]] ([[User talk:Pmbma|talk]]) 20:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I’ve said this a couple of times - please don’t leave, as you do make invaluable contributions. As I said above, I really don’t want to mass delete content - you’re the person that finds the sources that I often can’t, so you do make a difference. Please accept the offer of assistance in finding a tool that helps you turn bare URLs into fully structured references without additional effort. [[User:Danners430|Danners430]] ([[User talk:Danners430|talk]]) 20:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry I'm late to this. Real life and all that. @[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] there are shades of dickishness and I believe Danners430 is way less dickish. We've overlapped on a good number of articles and I don't think I've ever had to correct anything Danners430 has done, or come into conflict in anyway. As a net positive editor on Wikidpedia (Danners430) I support him bringing this issue here. We really shouldn't be needing to cleanup after someone who refuses to play nice. As has been said we are all volunteers with differing degrees of commitment. [[User:10mmsocket|10mmsocket]] ([[User talk:10mmsocket|talk]]) 21:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::OK, I quit wikipedia. It's clear that adding refences in an imperfect world is not welcome. [[User:Pmbma|Pmbma]] ([[User talk:Pmbma|talk]]) 21:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

	
:One point that needs considering here is whether citations - whether bare URL or fully filled in - are actually useful. I'd have to suggest that in the specific context under discussion - a list of airlines and the destinations served by an airport - some of those being added by Pmbma aren't. See this edit to [[Glasgow Airport]] for example. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glasgow_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1298135499] Nothing wrong with the source, but all it tells us is that back in 2019, the airline was going to recommence flights. It tells the reader absolutely nothing about what the current situation is, in a context where airlines routinely change the destinations they serve. I've noticed this issue in similar articles before, where citations are years out of date, in what purports to be current status. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::Under [[WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT]] we already have a policy that neither the airline nor the airport website can be used as a source to verify that an airline still flies a route. A large number of references that link to an airline or airport website have already been replaced with citation-needed under this policy. That already makes it difficult to find sources to show that airline X is still flying from airport P to airport Q. No, linking to Google Flights is not going to work. Nor Twitter. If you want a source to be less than a year old and be compliant with [[WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT]] and [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:PRIME]] and not breach licencing laws for a commercial data product - then we're rapidly running out of places to find a reference. As the saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good. [[User:Pmbma|Pmbma]] ([[User talk:Pmbma|talk]]) 20:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::That's an argument for not including content that can't be properly referenced. It isn't an argument for leaving it in when you can't reference it properly. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Or consider tha argument that airlines tend to continue flying the same routes every year. A large Japanese airline that currently flies from Tokyo to Los Angeles is very likely to being flying it again next year. Do we really need to get a new reference to reverify this every year without linking to an airline or airport website ? Or would we be better off finding a link to a news article saying that airline X will stop flying from airport P to airport Q and use that as a reference to justify deletion of the relevant information on wikipedia and thus keep wikipedia current ? [[User:Pmbma|Pmbma]] ([[User talk:Pmbma|talk]]) 21:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::How exactly is citing something from 2019 for a statement about destinations served keeping Wikipedia current? And no, we don't second-guess what airlines might be doing, for the same reason we don't second-guess anything else. If a list purporting to represent current status can't be supported by references that reflect current status, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Would you also propose that any wikipage about a train station, bus station or port should also have all information about where trains, buses or ships run as well ? We need to be consistent but we're talking about removing a LOT of information from wikipedia. [[User:Pmbma|Pmbma]] ([[User talk:Pmbma|talk]]) 21:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::A list that doesn't actually contain what it purports to isn't 'information'. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::This is getting a bit off-topic for this ANI discussion, but... Maybe these lists of airlines servicing an airport are a case of [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]. If I understand correctly, keeping these lists up to date is a lot of work, and it's difficult to find reliable sources. If that's the case, it might be better to simply delete these lists. I guess they're not really important for most of our readers. For example, I feel that [[Lyon–Saint-Exupéry Airport#Airlines and destinations]] is much too long and detailed. Instead, we could provide general statements that are unlikely to change, e.g. "the airport has been an important hub for airlines X, Y and Z since the 1990s", or whatever reliable sources say. — [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] ([[User talk:Chrisahn|talk]]) 23:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The list in the Lyon–Saint-Exupéry Airport article is a good example of how not to do it: cited almost in its entirety to a source (Aeroroutes.com) that is self published, by "an airline schedule nerd" [https://www.aeroroutes.com/about] which clearly isn't WP:RS, despite being cited over 1,500 times on Wikipedia. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*No offence to the OP, but I'm with Pmbma on this one. They're doing useful work on the project, providing references which ensure articles comply with [[WP:V]], one of our most key policies. Of course preferable to have a full citation over a bare URL, and it's good to inform editors of this guideline, but if they say they don't have the time to put the full citations then so be it, it's certainly not a disciplinary matter for ANI, which seems to be risking driving them off the project. It's hardly the end of the world if it's left as a bare URL for a while and it's generally 1000 times better than no citation at all. The OP cites [[WP:NODEADLINE]] but that also applies here. If you don't want to clean up the bare URLs then don't, leave it to someone else. In 99% of cases we'll still be able to follow the URL or else find it on the Web archive anyway. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 23:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:I get the frustration, with concern to linkrot, but I don't think there is a rule violation here.  It's annoying at best.  But it meets [[WP:V]]. v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 00:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Vofa ==

*{{userlinks|Vofa}}
*{{pagelinks|Hazaras}}
*{{pagelinks|Hazaragi dialect}}
*{{pagelinks|Mongolic peoples}}

I would like to report a pattern of disruptive editing by user {{userlinks|Vofa}}, who has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information regarding the Mongolic influence on the origins and language of the Hazara people across Wikipedia articles. These edits appear to violate multiple Wikipedia policies, including [[WP:RS]], [[WP:DE]], [[WP:CONS]], and [[WP:NPOV]].

1. Article: {{pagelinks|Hazaras}}.
Vofa [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1296868667 removed] referenced material discussing Mongolic origins of the Hazaras. Deleted sources include: Encyclopaedia Iranica (based on research from the Central Asian Monograph series, London), Rashid al-Din Hamadani, Orientalist Ármin Vámbéry, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations.

2. Article: {{pagelinks|Hazaragi dialect}}.
Content about the Mongolic influence on the dialect was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1297814707 removed]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1296871920 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=next&oldid=1296871920 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1297814707 3]. The removed sources include: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 
Encyclopaedia Iranica, Work by Dr. Lutfi Temirkhanov, a Doctor of Sciences and leading Hazara scholar.

3. Article: {{pagelinks|Mongolic peoples}}.
Information on the Hazara as a Mongolic-influenced group was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongolic_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1296828533 deleted], with the edit summary citing it as "WP:FRINGE". However, multiple peer-reviewed sources support the presence of Mongolic ancestry and linguistic heritage among the Hazaras.

4. Disputing source reliability.
In a related [[Talk:Hazaras#Origin_of_Hazaras|discussion]], Vofa claimed that Encyclopaedia Iranica is not a reliable source - contradicting [[WP:RSPS]] and consensus, as this source is widely accepted for Iranic, Persian, and Central Asian topics.

5. Prior behavioral issues.
The user has previously been blocked for violations of [[WP:EW]] and [[WP:DE]]. These recent actions demonstrate a continued disregard for sourcing standards and consensus.

Request: I kindly request that an administrator reviews Vofa’s editing behavior across the mentioned articles and warns the user about the importance of complying with Wikipedia’s core policies, especially regarding reliable sources and neutrality. Thank you.--[[User:KoizumiBS|KoizumiBS]] ([[User talk:KoizumiBS|talk]]) 22:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:(''If it's not obvious, [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Possible_slow-moving_revert_war_at_CTOP_article_Hazaras|this ANI report]] is related.'')
:The edits you mention -- specifically the ones on [[Hazaragi dialect]] -- seem a lot like POV-pushing to remove information referencing any relationship between Hazaragi and Mongolic language or peoples.
:* The revision you linked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1297814707 here] -- the removed statements are well-supported by (or directly quote) the sources, and the [[WP:UNDUE|weight]] of the bits in the article also seem to line up roughly with that of the sourced texts.
:* The edit summary for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1296871920 this edit] on the same page notes that the sources the section uses aren't easy to find or verify, which is apparently their reasoning for selectively removing ''only'' the parts of the section they disagree with.
:* The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi_dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1296872350 next edit] uses a misleading edit summary ("{{tq|''grammar''}}") to remove the last pieces of Mongolic mentions in the article.
:I'm also surprised to see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1296868667 this unexplained revert] on [[Mongolic peoples]] to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iampharzad|a now-banned sock]]'s revision which, on its face, seems to remove a lot of well-sourced information and reword significant parts of the article to be less-NPOV. —[[User:TonySt|<span style="border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;font-weight:bold;background:linear-gradient(270deg,#16C, #6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">tony</span>]] 18:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== LukeWiller ==

*{{userlinks|LukeWiller}}
*Further reading: [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#LukeWiller]]

Bringing this to the community for further attention and input. LukeWiller made the following comments at itwiki about his conduct on enwiki - namely, "provoking" editors to "flush" them out, and also reporting editors to the Police & Interpol. Please see below three comments with Google translations:

*[https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAmministratori%2FRiconferma_annuale%2FLukeWiller%2F6&diff=145478088&oldid=145476840 This comment], which Google translates to ''"There is a plethora of users on en.wiki that I have reported to the right people: I provoked them to make them come out into the open. Serious stuff, considering that I have also been to the police station in Milan for this matter."''
*[https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/LukeWiller/6&diff=next&oldid=145478152 This comment], which Google translates to ''"It is impossible to explain it in detail: since I was at the police station, most of the information is covered by investigative secrecy. What I can tell you is only one thing: at the police station they fully supported my suspicions and the users I reported, and an Interpol investigation was also launched. I cannot tell you more."''
*[https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/LukeWiller/6&diff=next&oldid=145478569 This comment], which Google translates to ''"I have never been an irredentist, but on en.wiki I pretended to be one in order to flush out the core of suspicious users, which is made up of Croatian users (obviously users of other nationalities are involved)."''

I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LukeWiller&diff=prev&oldid=1298043651 contacted] Luke at his talk page, providing him the opportunity to a) clarify the translations ([[WP:AGF|given they may potentially have been imprecise]]) and b) explain what he means by both provoking editors to flush them out, and reporting editors to authorities. (I had to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LukeWiller&diff=next&oldid=1298043651 follow-up], as my message was not responded to despite Luke continuing to edit.)

Luke then replied [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADaniel&diff=1298171534&oldid=1297093398 on my talk page], stating ''"Hi, sorry, I have nothing to add, I thought it was understood, the translations from Google translator are correct. If you want more information ask the ''[https://questure.poliziadistato.it/it/Milano questura di Milano]'', I can not disclose more."''

I think this is a totally unacceptable response, and I bring here for further review. Stating on-wiki (even on another wiki, but commenting about enwiki editors and activities) that you have reported editors to the Police & Interpol has a [[WP:LEGAL|chilling effect similar to a legal threat]], and refusing to disclose further as to their conduct is contradictory and inconsistent to making the statement on-wiki in the first place. Secondly, Luke has failed to explain what they mean by "provoking" editors to "flush" them out on enwiki. Keen for everyone's thoughts.

Thanks,<br>[[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 22:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:[[WP:NLT]] states {{tq|A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself.}} Going to the police is engaging in a real-life governmental process that would target other editors. Sounds like a legal threat to me. My only question is whether the remote location of this threat has any bearing on the response, since it occurred on it wiki (though in a very public venue). —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 23:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::Threatening to take legal action may have a chilling effect, but taking legal action does not have this effect unless it is mentioned on Wiki in order to prevent and stop others from editing. LukeWiller described his behaviour on another project, and there is no reason to believe that anyone on en.wiki felt threatened or intimidated. In fact, this report gives publicity to an action that I'm confident will have no effect, either on Wiki or in real life. Besides, having checked LukeWiller's edits carefully when I noticed the it.wiki discussion, I corrected some questionable ones ([[Talk:Philip Mazzei#Mazzei's contribution to the Declaration of Independence|here]]), but wasn't able to identify the targets of his alleged threat with any degree of certainty. It's not a threat; no harm was done. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 23:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::What a cop-out.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 00:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::The purpose of [[WP:NLT]] is to minimise the chilling effect on Wikipedia editing. While there are no direct threats being found, the expression of that he had opened a police case against another and expressed that he had engaged in entrapment practices (at least from how I read it), in absence of further replies from him that he does not engage in the practice further and/or stop opening police cases against others, the continued presence of him here on wiki is a perceived threat to others who continue to interact with him. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 01:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::If the people working the same articles on the same contentious whatever is going on find out about this, the chilling effect applies. Is there not a zero tolerance policy for this?  -- [[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]) 15:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::This is not the first time LukeWiller has threatened people. There have been unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry (in many of his edit summaries; see a reaction by @[[User:SigillumVert|SigillumVert]]  [[User_talk:LukeWiller#c-Andro611-20250112104800-Meatpuppeting?_Excuse_me?|here]]) and meatpuppetry or what not ([[User_talk:LukeWiller#c-LukeWiller-20241228142700-Ponor-20241228141900|here]]), pretty much in any topic LukeWiller felt he had to protect his POV. He misrepresented two sources in numerous articles, and edit warred about it, saying all the data is in the sources. When I asked [[Talk:Dalmatia#c-Ponor-20250103155700-Early_nineteenth_century_population_sources|where exactly the numbers are in the sources]], all he had to say was [[User_talk:Ponor#c-LukeWiller-20250111225300-Re:_Sources_discussed_at_Talk:Dalmatia|"Is it mandatory to participate in discussions?"]] There was another incident, involving administrators @[[User:Joy|Joy]] and @[[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]], who noticed some additional POV push, [[Talk:Allied_occupation_of_the_eastern_Adriatic#c-Joy-20250323232600-Peacemaker67-20250323032900|here]]. I have his talk page on my watchlist and I cannot unsee  @[[User:Daniel|Daniel's]] recent posting. Though I hope Interpol has better things to do than to protect the accuser's blatant POV push, I do feel threatened and I do think LukeWiller is no longer here to build an encyclopedia. [[User:Ponor|Ponor]] ([[User talk:Ponor|talk]]) 00:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Ponor|Ponor]] it looks like I was overly lenient in that holiday season interaction. I'm sorry. We probably should have used [[WP:AE]] much sooner. (I don't like to do it myself because it's usually a time-consuming, bureaucratic process.) --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 14:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Joy|Joy]]: I'm sure nobody likes this, as I'm sure that's what NNPOV editors, to put it mildly, [[WP:CIVILPOV|really hope for]]. Meanwhile, the list of the things that need to be fixed after them grows longer and longer. I've wasted too much time asking LukeWiller for sources, any sources; my only other option was to EDITWAR. To what avail? [[User:Ponor|Ponor]] ([[User talk:Ponor|talk]]) 14:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::Well, actually, your other option was to file a [[WP:AE]] report yourself. Sorry :) --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 15:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:I'd think this would be an open and shut case, where they'd be blocked per [[WP:NLT]]. Why are we even having this conversation? '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 00:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::Solely because the threat is not on English wikipedia. If it were, I would block immediately. As a comparison, however, I don't believe anyone would block for a legal threat expressed on X/Twitter. This is somewhere in between, so not quite black and white. I lean towards blocking, but am interested in hearing if there is any preexisting experience with threats on other wikipedias. Note that in many cases, we don't block based on behavior on other wikipedias. This behavior, though, has some bleedthrough to the english wikipedia. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 01:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Exactly and precisely, rsjaffe. I still think this is within our scope as a) part if not all of the misconduct directly relates to enwiki, and b) the editor is SUL-linked to the itwiki account. But there was enough gray that I didn't just push the button without discussing here first, even if I think the editor should indeed be blocked. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 02:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::Editor should '''absolutely''' be blocked. {{tqq|I don't believe anyone would block for a legal threat expressed on X/Twitter.}} Legal threat? No. Legal threat ''against en.wiki editors''? Yes, 100%. Per [[WP:NLT]]: {{tqq|A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia.}}. While the page does start with {{tqq|Do not post legal threats on Wikipedia.}}, (1) the definiton of "legal threat" doesn't mention "on Wikipeida", only "that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself", and (2) note that even the first part doesn't say "on ''English'' Wikipedia". And regardless of how we define this as a legal threat, the apparent "provoking" of en.wiki editors is absolutely behavior that is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{Tq|What I can tell you is just one thing: in the police station they fully emarried my suspicions and the utilities that I reported, and an Interpol investigation also started.}}
:::::@[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] We have a user that reported other Wikipedia users to the ''fucking Interpol''. Why are we discussing this and waiting for their response? Do we expect the truth from them when they have, in their own words, been "pretending" on en-wiki to achieve a hidden goal? [[User:TurboSuperA+|<small><span style="background:#000;color:#FFF;"><em><b>TurboSuperA+</b></em></span></small>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<sub>(connect)</sub>]] 06:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::Exactly. The rules seem to clearly state the threat doesn't have to be issued on {{tq|en.wikipedia.org}}.  -- [[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]) 15:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::This can be resoled by the local self-governance capacity to enforce the [[:foundation:UCoC]] or by [[:m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee]] for all WMF projects. 
::::* Harassment includes: [[:foundation:Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct#3 – Unacceptable behaviour|''Explicitly or implicitly suggesting the possibility of ... intimidation by suggesting gratuitous legal action]].
::::* Abuse of the projects: [[:foundation:Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct#3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects|''Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view (also by means of unfaithful or deliberately false rendering of sources and altering the correct way of composing editorial content)'']] (per discussions linked in my report above and the archived ANI report).
::::[[User:Ponor|Ponor]] ([[User talk:Ponor|talk]]) 02:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::This all seems pretty clear-cut to me. If we accept for the sake of argument that it's not technically a violation of [[WP:NLT]], it seems obvious that the intent is to threaten/intimidate other posters to "undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing," which is a violation of [[WP:HARASS]] [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 02:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:Everyone appears caught up on the NLT issue, but the user is editing to make a [[WP:POINT]] regardless of the legal process. As they have said their edits are designed to 'provoke' editors for their external cause. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 02:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*This is my preference as an administrator but I'd prefer that no action be taken until we hear from LukeWiller here on ANI. I haven't read his User talk page yet but I'd allow more time to see if he wants to respond here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::Just thought I'd mention that browsing around on the Italian Wikipedia, LukeWiller is currently undergoing reconfirmation as an admin there (see [https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/LukeWiller/6 this discussion]) and it looks like this is a very stressful experience. Episodes on EnWiki look like they are a factor in this discussion on It.Wiki. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Luke was asked on his talk page about these exact same issues, and after I followed-up (he continued editing without responding), his eventual response was that he had nothing further to say or clarify. This is all clearly outlined in my original post, with links to the comments. Further, all the translated comments from my original post above were from that reconfirmation discussion - everyone would already be aware of its existence. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 06:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::For some reason, on ANI, once a situation has been brought to light, there is this fire under some editors to act immediately as if the status quo can not go on for another single day without the project imploding. I was just expressing my own approach to adminning which is to hear both sides of the story. I see that you only confronted them about this situation about 24 hours ago which, in my book, is not much time, given other distractions and pressures, to react. But I'm only one voice here. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't eventually support a block, I just wanted to hear from the editor if only to get some insight into what exactly they've been up to as it affects our editors. The more information, the better. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::LukeWiller was very clear as to what they've been up to. They even referred further inquiries to the police in Milan. Are we waiting for the [[carabinieri]] to weigh in? [[User:TurboSuperA+|<small><span style="background:#000;color:#FFF;"><em><b>TurboSuperA+</b></em></span></small>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<sub>(connect)</sub>]] 07:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::As was somewhat predictable, Luke showed up to edit today, but rather than editing here at ANI to explain his actions, he chose to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_museums_in_Italy&diff=prev&oldid=1298264615 edit elsewhere]. I hope that puts to bed any suggestion of needing to 'wait' for someone who clearly had no interest in engaging, and explicitly said so to me when I first challenged him on this (as he also said to people at itwiki when they challenged him on it, too). [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 16:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:I tried to bring this user to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Italian names of Croatian cities|the attention of the community]] before for nationalist POV-pushing, adding Italian names as currently-used alternative names for Croatian cities. While an argument can be made for some cities, LukeWiller added the Italian name to every Croatian city and town that was under Italian fascist occupation before and during WWII. [[Talk:Rijeka#Fiume is not the native name of Rijeka|In this discussion]] LukeWiller linked to a book about an Italian fascist to argue for including an Italian name for "also known as".
:LukeWiller was successful in provoking a response from me and other editors, which we can now see was his goal all along. 
:{{tq|I have never been an irredentist, but on en.wiki I pretended to be one in order to flush out the core of suspicious users}}
:He "pretended" to be a fascist on en-wiki so that he could file a police report against editors who had a problem with his (self-admitted) irredentism. We have an editor who's stated goal on en-wiki is to report anti-fascists to the police, am I understanding this right? [[User:TurboSuperA+|<small><span style="background:#000;color:#FFF;"><em><b>TurboSuperA+</b></em></span></small>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<sub>(connect)</sub>]] 06:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:Me, I'm with Liliana: why are we even having this conversation?  This is a guy who openly admits to using Wikipedia as a tool to ferret out people whose politics he doesn't like.  With that, I don't give a good goddamn what he has to say; he's said enough already.  We've indeffed newbies for a fraction of that much offensiveness.  I therefore propose, and '''support''', a '''community ban''' on LukeWiller. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]]   06:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::*'''Strong Support''' - Like Ravenswing, I'm not sure why we're even having this conversation. We have a user who is trying to lure editors into speech-related behavior so that he can tell fucking ''Interpol'' about and is proud of it. We rightly cban editors for behavior a fraction as frightening or damaging to the community. We can't effect a SanFranBan, but we can certainly remove an editor who is trying to intimidate editors in an awful way. If we can't protect our editors from a bad actor like this, then what's the point of all this? [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 07:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::'''Support full ban''' - NOTHERE to build ENWP. We don't want him to waste his time here. Administrators should have expected full professionalism when carrying out duties. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 07:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

: Even regardless of the various claims that haven't been externally verified, overall this seems like a user who has admitted they've engaged in a long trolling campaign. How would we even really know that this isn't some classic like {{u|Brunodam}} or {{u|Velebit}} or whatever other long-time abuser? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::No, this is not the case. It's quite more likely that this is a good faith editor who is experiencing some kind of personal difficulties and stress, which affected their on-Wiki behaviour in an indirect and limited way. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 08:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::This wasn't "indirect" or "limited". This was an editor who explicitly by their own admission has [[WP:HARASS|harassed]] en-wiki contributors with what is, to call a spade a spade, ''trolling'', and has been unrepentant when questioned about it. I would have blocked them on the spot, except other admins had already brought it up and were discussing it. I respect Liz's opinions above, but I would like to lay down a line here: {{ping|LukeWiller}}, your response to this is required, and you need a ''very'' good explanation for the comments linked by the OP, or you will be blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::* Their first edit to an irredentism and Croatia/Dalmatia related topic was on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_irredentism_in_Dalmatia&diff=prev&oldid=1024021298 19 May 2021], so they've been on a 4-year long campaign to push a nationalist POV. From what I can gather they wish to portray Croatia (specifically Dalmatia and Istria) as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istrian_Italians&diff=prev&oldid=1277830752|historically Italian lands], that Italians were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion&diff=prev&oldid=1051661529 expelled from] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_cleansing&diff=prev&oldid=1128121460 ethnically cleansed]. Then to continue to claim these formerly occupied cities are still called by Italian names (thus implying they will one day be returned to Italy) is by definition (and by the editor's own admission) ''irredentism''. 
:::* The user [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vaselineeeeeeee/Archive_18#h-Italian_diaspora-2021-10-16T17:37:00.000Z uses Italian on en-wiki Talk pages], [[WP:ENGLISHPLEASE]]. 
:::* They have also heavily edited the [[Italian Fascism]] article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1120175850 removing] sources by saying {{tq|Eliminating information without source}} in the edit summary. They did the same [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1120176900 here]
:::* In February 2023, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split,_Croatia&diff=prev&oldid=1141407329 started adding] Italian names as "other names" (i.e. alternative names currently in use) to Istrian and Dalmatian cities. Which they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zadar&diff=prev&oldid=1141510207 continued]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pula&diff=prev&oldid=1142829645 Here] they say that the Italian name is the "original name" of the city, and use it in the Wikipedia article.
:::This is not "limited" in any sense of the word. They have been at it ''for years''. It doesn't matter that the user was "only pretending" (although I don't find that explanation convincing), they've done willful damage to Wikipedia by pushing a fascist narrative across many articles. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<small><span style="background:#000;color:#FFF;"><em><b>TurboSuperA+</b></em></span></small>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<sub>(connect)</sub>]] 09:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::JFTR, not all of these things individually are necessarily pushing a fascist narrative, as we have historically had interesting debates about the various nuances in describing the history of these regions. I happen to still remember [[Talk:Italy (geographical region)#Sourcing]] where they seemed somewhat reasonable - even if they never actually resolved the problem they introduced. However, if this user's contribution has now deteriorated from merely being of questionable quality - that we assume good faith about - to these weird trolling stories and editing patterns that are suspect to so many, it's time to react. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 14:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::When I'm stressed about something on Wikipedia, I take a deep breath and a step back, I don't try to bait people so I can report them to the police or Interpol or threaten other editors. It's right to show understanding to someone who has a reasonable reaction to a stressful situation, but LukeWiller's actions are far beyond the pale, and he's shown zero remorse for his behavior, which is certainly not limited to this incident. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 11:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::(gawks at Gitz)  Good grief.  We all have had personal difficulties and high stress.  We've all lost loved ones, had relationships break up, been in financial straits, had the boss/professor yell at us, had health problems, and/or dropped something heavy on our foot. ''And we don't all bait people so we can report them to Interpol.'' What the hell? [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]]   13:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:More problematic behaviour:
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Year%27s_Day&diff=next&oldid=1297380840 Unilaterally removed] a merge tag less than an hour after it was placed by another editor, with the edit summary {{Tq|I don't agree}}.
:* As recent as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vaselineeeeeeee&diff=prev&oldid=1293291243 May 2025] they've been conversing in Italian on talk pages. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vaselineeeeeeee&diff=prev&oldid=1291707186 That] is something they often do.
:More irredentism and nationalist POV CPUSH-ing:
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Rijeka&diff=prev&oldid=1265726188 Here] they added a picture of Italians in Rijeka cheering on the fascist D'Annunzio and his "Legionnaires". They also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rijeka&diff=next&oldid=1289465747 added a source] for the population numbers in the caption (guess who they favour); even though the source specifically says the numbers were {{tq|''claimed''}} the image caption is written in Wikivoice.
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_World_War_I&diff=prev&oldid=1294114512 Here] LukeWiller writes that Italy was to "reclaim" territories from Austria-Hungary in WWI, but the cited source uses the words "territorial concessions" and "territorial demands".
:They routinely misrepresent what the sources say and it is no accident, this editor is here to [[WP:CPUSH]]. Therefore, based on their edits, I '''support a TBAN''' from topics related to Italy and Croatia, broadly construed. But because of their unapologetic legal threats, reporting of editors to the police, and poor communication, I '''support a CBAN''' per [[WP:NOTHERE]] and their disregard of [[WP:NLT]] ''policy''. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<small><span style="background:#000;color:#FFF;"><em><b>TurboSuperA+</b></em></span></small>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<sub>(connect)</sub>]] 11:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::Perhaps I am particularly sensitive to WP disruption on Twitter this week, you know, because of everything,  but I honestly don't see these threats as being better for being off-wiki. The spirit of [[WP:NLT]] is to prevent threats from chilling discussion.  Regardless of lawyeristic rules-parsing, it's clear the intent was to use threats to chill discussion. As such NLT should be enforced. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::I've noticed that NNPOV caption too, @[[User:TurboSuperA+|TurboSuperA+]]. Typical of LukeWiller's copy&paste habits, it got propagated to [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3AFiume+insource%3A%2FItalians+in+a+total+population+of+35%2C839%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 19 articles]. Obviously, he never went far enough with his behavior to deserve a block ([[WP:CIVILPOV]]), but (IMO) he used his "experienced editor status" to push less experienced editors into 3RR/WAR, knowing they'd be blocked. That's the reason I got involved, though on any mention of our content policies he'd just say they're my interpretations and not how he sees them. So I gave up, until now. [[User:Ponor|Ponor]] ([[User talk:Ponor|talk]]) 12:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
===Proposal 1:  Site Ban for Cross-Wiki Abuse===
Cross-wiki abuse is especially serious and must be dealt with.  I see a few supports above for a [[WP:CBAN|community site ban]] but will put in a heading for one here.
*'''Support''' a [[WP:SITEBAN|site ban]] as proposer.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 14:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Threats against other editors over content disputes have no place on Wikipedia and neither do those editors who traffic in them. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This is an obvious legal threat cross-Wiki.
*'''Strong Support''' This is beyond legal threats and is actually legal action. Provoking other editors should be reason enough but in this case the provoking is just the corn on this shit Sunday. I'm wondering if a global ban should be though about at this point, but, that's probs overkill and doesn't meet the criteria. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 14:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*<b>Support</b> for a blatant [[WP:LEGAL]] threat, which says in a nutshell, {{tq|If you post a legal threat on Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely}}.<span id="EF5:1751382336051:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;<big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[User:EF5/Guide to writing about tornadoes|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup>  15:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)</span>
*'''Support'''. The legal threats are bad enough, but admitting to being an [[agent provacateur]] is outrageous. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Clear and unavoidable evidence. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 15:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The admission of WP:POINT editing "pretended to be an irredentist" is bad enough alone. If they actually reported people to the police and had an investigation opened over a content dispute, they are not a safe person to have editing here, even if they are feeling stressed. That is not an appropriate reaction. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 15:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Clear legal threat. As for 'pretending to be an irredentist', I'll pretend to believe that isn't just a bullshit excuse for being one, but either way it is an admission of [[WP:NOTHERE]] behaviour and/or outright dishonesty. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 15:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as the editor who started the archived report linked above. The pro-Italian POV pushing should be enough to warrant a ban. ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 15:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as the rules here seem to be clear cut that the legal threat doesn't have to be issued on the English Wikipedia itself. Also, this would seem to imply they're here not to build the encyclopedia but to advance their own whatever it is they're up to.  -- [[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]])
*'''Support.''' Ciao, Felizia. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 15:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Not even a close call. This case should also be referred to T&S for possible WMF action. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 16:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This isn't "I'm talking to my lawyers", this is "I dragged Interpol into it". --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 16:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' completely bizarre behavior; "agent provocateur" sums it up in a nutshell (or ''case''), but their entire behavior is disgraceful, and ban-worthy on multiple counts. "''[[Arrivederci Roma]]''". [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 16:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for this reason. A legal threat on any Wikipedia should, IMO, be taken as a legal threat on enwiki if it affects en.wiki. If I were to go on the Spanish Wikipedia and saw a legal threat there directed at me, I'd be just as chilled from editing on the English one as I would have been had the threat been made here. There's no good reason to differentiate between wikis when it comes to enforcing NLT here; a legal threat is a legal threat. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:35% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Gommeh|🎮]]</span> 15:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
**Just would like to add that I've started a discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:No legal threats]] regarding how we can handle cases like this in the future given how serious legal threats are. I felt like it needed to be discussed. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:35% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Gommeh|🎮]]</span> 16:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|A legal threat on any Wikipedia should, IMO, be taken as a legal threat on enwiki if it affects en.wiki.}}
*:Why would it be limited to a WMF site? If someone does it on Twitter or some other site and the person's identity can be assigned to an En.wiki user, surely the same standard would apply? If I threaten to sue you on Twitter for stuff done on here, I would and should be immediately nuked.  -- [[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]) 16:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::Off-wiki legal threats should have been dealt by the U4C and the WMF, if the threats are clearly harming the editors. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 16:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::Enwiki has an ArbCom. UCoC can only step in if there has been a systemic failure by ArbCom. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 20:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::I never mentioned whether I thought that should apply to other non-WMF sites but I agree with you there. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:35% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Gommeh|🎮]]</span> 16:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:NLT]]. —[[User:TonySt|<span style="border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;font-weight:bold;background:linear-gradient(240deg,#16C, #6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">tony</span>]] 16:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Dragging the police into matters simply to ''win an on-wiki dispute'' isn't just overkill, it wastes the time of police officers who have to deal with this nonsense rather than deal with more pressing matters. I agree with referring this to T&S; this looks like grounds for a global ban. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 16:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' site ban per [[WP:NOTHERE]], at the very least for (by their account) editing en.wiki deceitfully to draw out opponents and report them to the police. Yes, it's also an on-wiki, but off-en.wiki, legal threat against anyone engaging with their edits on en.wiki - we can't tell which falsely represent their position and which are honest. Yes too, we can't tell if they did go to the police, if the police listened or warned them against wasting police time or what, and even if this justification for their editing is truthful. Even disregarding all that, by their own account their edits are [[WP:Tendentious editing]] (one major form of [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]]) and several types of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 17:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''comment''' While the outcome might look obvious it might be worth giving it another 24 hours to see if LukeWiller has anything further to say.[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 19:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:But it might not. If they shock everyone by providing a valid justification then a ban can be undone. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::And the 'explanation', whatever it might be, isn't going to be able to confirm that the legal threat is withdrawn and will not happen. Luke said that the investigation is already underway and doubled-down when asked to clarify. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 20:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::As of writing this, there are '''23''' people who have voted in support of a ban, including myself. Even if they did that, I doubt they'd be able to convince a majority that they shouldn't be banned. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:35% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Gommeh|🎮]]</span> 20:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::Erm.  You're a smart fellow, Phil.  Let's indulge our flights of fancy.  Can you -- or anyone reading this -- ''possibly'' come up with a justification you legitimately think we'd swallow, never mind pass policy muster?  If he somehow convinced WMF that he was an accredited agent of his government, assigned to smack down terrorists on Wikipedia, that still would be a NOTHERE written across the sky in blazing golden letters. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>'''  ]]   22:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:Luke is clearly aware of this discussion since he responded to the original complainant and has since been editing on Wikipedia. He should have been banned by now, and certainly doesn't deserve another 24 hours of benefit of the doubt. Waffle stomp that nugget down the drain and be done with it. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 20:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::Even with this ''very'' clear consensus, per [[WP:CBAN]] the discussion '''must''' be kept open for at least 24 hours. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::I apologize; I was responding to the mention of "another 24 hours". Perhaps that applies to this specific proposal and not the original report? [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 20:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::I'd count the 24 hours from the first support of a community ban, so starting at 06:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC). - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
		
*'''Comment''' Do we even know ''what'' exactly this dispute is about? While I wholeheartedly agree that we shouldn't be involving public law enforcement in the operations of a private website lightly, and ideally users should exhaust all internal mechanisms through WMF Legal or T&S first, the mere fact that someone felt disturbed enough with ''something'' to make law enforcement contact shouldn't be overlooked either. Not everyone knows that WMF Legal or T&S exist. Additionally, I would think most people would know that deliberately making frivolous complaints to law enforcement is itself a criminal offense in many jurisdictions, and thus I wouldn't be so quick to simply dismiss this as an "abusive attempt to win a content dispute" without further details and investigation by WMF or other appropriate individuals. [[Special:Contributions/2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8]] ([[User talk:2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|talk]]) 21:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm sure the WMF would investigate if they thought it necessary, but I don't know if we'd even need to go that far just yet. At most, it looks like Luke was unfamiliar with our expectations and is going to be c-banned for it. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:35% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Gommeh|🎮]]</span> 21:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::Per the OP, it wasn't "feeling disturbed", it was deliberate trolling. I'm not sure where the "content dispute" bit came from - perhaps there's more context in the original it.wiki coments? - but from what was posted here it was deliberate disruption/harrassment for no reason other than "I want to report these people". That's very much not {{tqq|unfamiliar with our expectations}}. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::Hmm... what's the likelihood that this whole thing is indeed an exercise in trolling and that no report or other contact was actually made? As I noted above, deliberately making frivolous complaints to law enforcement is itself a criminal offense, and therefore I can't picture someone ''actually'' reporting people just for "trolling" or "harassment" - there would have to be a plausible case that the reported person(s) had done ''something'' to warrant a law enforcement investigation. [[Special:Contributions/2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8]] ([[User talk:2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|talk]]) 21:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::The fact that he *probably* was lying about his threat of legal action does not make anything better. If he changes his mind about doubling-down on his claim, then he can explain it in his unblock request. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 21:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::I got the feeling he was reporting people for being "antifascist". Does he know [[Death of Benito Mussolini#Subsequent events|Italy's history with fascists]]? 🧐 [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 21:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:We can see the diffs where he said what he did and why he said did it.
*:This does not require investigation by some specialized group of people. Perhaps it would be helpful to look at the links that were provided here? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 21:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:What recourse does the WMF have here?  It isn't a law enforcement operation, and there's no point to an "investigation."  We ban him, that's pretty much the limit. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>'''  ]]   22:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' get rid. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 21:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' as the original proposer.  Like some others above, I'm militantly unconcerned about what might be the provocation, whether he was lying or not about doing it, whether he was just trolling, or what he has to say in his defense.  It's indefensible, full stop. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>'''  ]]   22:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' While I agree that publicly announcing your intention to file legal or criminal proceedings against someone is poor judgment at best, and at worst possibly is a violation of the law itself (depending on the jurisdiction - at least from my experience, you're not supposed to publicly comment on an ongoing legal matter at any place or with any person other than privately with the named complainant(s) or their attorneys until the matter has been resolved), we should not overlook the severity of this. I agree that a block for making legal threats is appropriate, but let's not completely sweep this under the rug until we are ''completely sure'' that it was just trolling, and that there isn't anything else to it. Just for the record, {{ping|WMFOffice}} {{ping|WMF Legal}} have your teams received any communication regarding this matter? Obviously you can't give any details, but a simple affirmative/negative should suffice. [[Special:Contributions/2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8]] ([[User talk:2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|talk]]) 22:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:This is the second time you've tried to imply that there is "something" going on that might mean Luke is right to {{strike|say that he}} intentionally lie{{strike|d}} in his posts to trick people into arguing with him about the names of cities and then report them to the police.
*:Could you give us a little more information on what you think that might be? What are we to avoid "sweeping under the rug"? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 22:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::Well, that's the problem. We don't know. That's why the WMF needs to be informed if they haven't been already. Sure, we can block the user for disruption/making threats/harassment, and I don't oppose that, but we also have to assume that there was a legitimate concern that led to the user making a police report, until it has been undeniably proven otherwise by someone with the proper expertise (full disclosure: I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer, and I wouldn't be comfortable making such proclamation right now). As I said above, because of the fact that deliberately making frivolous complaints to law enforcement is itself a crime, I'd be reluctant to believe that someone would actually file a police report if there wasn't something that seriously concerned them. If, upon investigation by the WMF, it is determined that a). A report was indeed filed with law enforcement, and b). The report did indeed have legitimate merit (i.e. editors possibly engaged in criminal activity), this community could be accused of being complicit by summarily dismissing it as "trolling" and not doing due diligence. [[Special:Contributions/2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8]] ([[User talk:2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|talk]]) 22:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::Frankly, I have difficulty in understanding how enforcing standard Wikipedia practice - which is to block those who make legal threats, regardless of whether they seem legitimate, or even plausible - could be seen as 'complicity' in anything. We have a project to run, and given the obviously disruptive effects of such threats, we try to deal with them consistently in the same manner. We are in no position to prevent anyone from going to the police, or suing, or doing anything similar, and nor are we attempting to. We are merely acting to ensure that such external matters are not being brought on-Wikipedia in a public manner. They don't need to be, and as a lawyer, I'd have thought you would advise anyone in such a position not to do so. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::For sure, I don't agree with the initial comments even being made. As I alluded to above, it is definitely not advisable, and in some cases not legal, to publicly disclose details or, in some situations, the mere existence of, a criminal proceeding with uninvolved parties until said proceeding has been completed. That's why I do support blocking the user who made the comments for doing exactly that - even if it wasn't an explicit violation of site policy it would merit a censure anyway. What I am cautioning people about is to avoid having the entire flowchart be "Editor A said he reported Editors B and C to the police. Block or ban Editor A immediately, no questions asked, end of story". That's not sufficient. Regardless of whether or not Editor A is blocked, the allegations need to be looked into by professional legal counsel, which I am told the WMF employs. Enforcing site policy is indeed a good thing and should be encouraged. But, on the other hand, the fact of the matter is that we have been informed that there is a possibility that an editor believes another editor(s) has engaged in criminal activity (because why else would they involve the police? Again making frivolous police reports is itself a crime so I don't think that someone would make a report without having solid evidence of ''something'' - otherwise they'd be facing charges themselves). We have an obligation to try and determine the context/background for the allegations as best as we can with publicly available information, and then to inform the body that can investigate the private aspects and actually make a legal conclusion about the plausibility of the allegations, which we can't do. Failure to do these things, especially the latter, is being complicit, even if unintentionally. [[Special:Contributions/2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8]] ([[User talk:2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|talk]]) 23:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::::You're over-thinking this. The most likely cause of this is Luke trying to troll people who made edits he doesn't like. The next most likely is that there is some kind of unfortunate mental episode going on.
*:::::Luke is an experienced editor, if there was something real happening, that other people could see, then there are plenty of ways to report that, Wikipedia has dealt with things like that before plenty of times.
*:::::And as a lawyer, you should already know that having someone yell, "a crime might have happened but I won't tell you what it is!" and then run away does not impose a liability on literally anyone. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 23:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::::See, my view is that we ought to be treating this far more seriously than just someone yelling "A crime may have been committed!" You're right that this could just be a giant exercise in trolling, and this could be a result of a mental health crisis. But it could also be much worse than that. Any my general view, and what I advise all people across all disciplines, is that when it comes to legal threats or threats of criminal proceedings, you are to take it seriously and treat it as though it is legitimate until you have definitive proof otherwise. Never assume that something is "just trolling" or hollow without investigating. I was actually looking to see if this project had any guidance about this, and it turns out we do: [[WP:DOLT]]. I'd be more inclined to believe that this is just trolling/harassment/intimidation if it was just an "I'll sue you" type of threat. Because even if a lawsuit is deemed meritless and tossed out, there usually isn't any criminal repercussion for the person who brought it unless it was blatantly done in bad faith. That's not the case for an actual police report - if someone makes a report to the police, and it turns out to be frivolous, that person can very realistically face legal consequences themselves. Even more so when we start talking about Interpol. Therefore, if a report was indeed made, that means that there has to be something of serous concern going on, and no, other people won't always be able to see it (and that's not a prerequisite anyway). But it's not the place of unpaid volunteer editors to make a conclusion as to whether a report was indeed filed or not. [[Special:Contributions/2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8]] ([[User talk:2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8|talk]]) 00:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::Again, we *do* know what Luke was talking because they told us, and we've seen the diffs in which they did so and then confirmed that the editor who spoke to him was understanding him correctly.
*:::There is no secret information that we haven't seen, as you can confirm in this section.
*:::And the due diligence in this case was satisfied by asking Luke if what he posted was what he intended, and if there was anything he wanted to add. 
*:::If you can think of any way that changing the names of cities on the Adriatic can be controversial enough to involve Interpol, you're welcome to ask Luke to confirm your theory, but the rest of us have to go by the facts in evidence. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 23:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Agent provocateur by his own admission, clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]]. “Flushing-out” other editors to report them to police is utterly deranged and must not be tolerated. [[User:SigillumVert|SigillumVert]] ([[User talk:SigillumVert|talk]]) 00:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

== BlackAfrican2006 ==
{{atop|status=Indef and a rangeblock|{{nac}} /64 blocked for personal attacks and BlackAfrican2006 indeffed. [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|AlphaBetaGamma]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/report any mistakes here]]) </small> 14:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)<br>Adding: BlackAfrican2006 has now been checkuser-blocked by {{u|PhilKnight}} as a sock of {{noping|GloryToCalifornia}}, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GloryToCalifornia]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 19:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC). }}
{{Userlinks|BlackAfrican2006}} has 350 edits over a month, one AN/EW visit, and several protracted battles on pages caused by their seeming inability to be told they are wrong about their edits to our most important articles. The most recent cycle is with the lead of [[Religion]], in which explications of [[WP:ONUS]] went in one ear and out the other, and now they think they're teaching me some lesson by following me around and messing with my other edits, even where they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.{{diffs|1298227850| 1298229512|1298235208}} They have yet to acknowledge instances where they were wrong in literally any of their communications, and I really think they've been given enough straight talk about how untenable their behavior is. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 07:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:There certainly seems to be some [[WP:STALKING]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk&diff=prev&oldid=1298235208]. [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 07:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::I want to be explicit that I sometimes peruse someone's edit history to check for similarly problematic edits when I notice something off, and a lot of editors don't like that so much. I'm not going to characterize it as stalking, that would be hypocritical of me, but it's clear as day they're trying to needle me by doing what they think I do, which is flat-out vandalism. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 08:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::So you just admitted you were checking my edit history reverting my edits, if I do it i get reverted and threatened. By the way you broke the edit war policy multiple times on reverting more than 3 times on a page and 24 hours and of course he doesn't get warned or anything because he's an "experienced editor" so he could do no wrong. [[User:BlackAfrican2006|BlackAfrican2006]] ([[User talk:BlackAfrican2006|talk]]) 08:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:Here's the context. Remsense reverted four different edits of mine on four different pages. I think he was following me first. I reverted one of Remsense's edits because I disagreed with it, and in his edit summary he said "this will get dangerous real quick" which is basically a threat. On the talk page of religion, I explained how is revert goes against sources and he basically ignored me and when I showed him a source that backs my edit be said my edit was unsourced. I didn't "revert his edits" because 98% of his edits are reverts, I reverted one of his reverts I disagree with, he constantly reverts me all the time and I get threatened [[User:BlackAfrican2006|BlackAfrican2006]] ([[User talk:BlackAfrican2006|talk]]) 08:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::Appreciated that you essentially concurred with my above characterization of what you're doing. How do you think you can agree you're editing with retributive motivations and think that's going to go good for you? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 08:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm not editing with "retributive motivations", I'm reverting your edits i disagree with because I know you reverted me for no reason, so you probably revert other people for no reason. I'm not reverting all your reverts, I'm just reverting stuff I disagree with, because if you have a right to do it with other people than shouldn't I have that right without having to get threatened and reported?  If you just put "A religion" instead of just"Religion" for the lead sentence because of Grammar issues, can we both agree to drop this whole thing and move on if you self-revert your newest edit at [[Religion]] [[User:BlackAfrican2006|BlackAfrican2006]] ([[User talk:BlackAfrican2006|talk]]) 08:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::{{btq|I'm reverting your edits i disagree with because I know you reverted me for no reason, so you probably revert other people for no reason. }}
::::Unbelievable! I couldn't've said it better. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 08:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::Now you're taking me out of context. I'm only reverting edits I disagree with, I don't disagree with all your reverts. And you revert me for the most harmless edits and admitted it's because you look at my edit history. so yeah why can't I revert edits I disagree with. What made you above me where I get reported for doing so while you say "Things are going to get dangerous". [[User:BlackAfrican2006|BlackAfrican2006]] ([[User talk:BlackAfrican2006|talk]]) 08:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Right, we are now in the dangerous place, if the connection wasn't clear. Because this isn't your personal playground. Acting under inspiration of your petty disagreements (as if that sounds better???) in areas you clearly know exactly nothing over the quality of the encyclopedia is exactly why we're here. Given you've tripled and now quadrupled down on that you've clearly got to go, and fast. Fun flailing sockpuppetry accusations you've pivoted to on [[Talk:Religion]] now, too. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 08:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::BA2006 repeatedly breached [[WP:GOODFAITH]]; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion&diff=prev&oldid=1298236104 diff] for the latest: {{tq|Are you his alt account or a friend}}. Accusations of socking should be substantiated, and certainly not directed at obvious senior editors who don't need socking or tag-teaming. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 08:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, they looked at your edit history, because they believed you had a history of unconstructive edits. That is normal. Following someone and making reversions to {{tqq|edits I disagree with}} is ''not that''. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Bushranger says "yes they looked at your edit history, because they believed you had a history of unconstructive edits." I believed Remsense had a history of unconstructive edits, they can stalk me and follow me around but I can't revert edits I disagree with and check their edit history, aka reverts I think aren't constructive? Joshua Jonathan says I'm not acting in Good faith, well if someone was stalking your account reverting all of your edits first you think you would "act in good faith". Remsense clearly didn't because he reported me, but I'm supposed to act in good faith why it all doesn't apply to Remsense. The contradictions, double standards etc. are crazy. [[User:BlackAfrican2006|BlackAfrican2006]] ([[User talk:BlackAfrican2006|talk]]) 08:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I mean, arguably the primary distinction would be whether you're making the encyclopedia better, and since your campaign was panning out with results such as "why are you calling Palestinian Jews Arab?", that means you did bad, and there was something wonky with your approach! and it's blowing my mind how you're incapable of admitting that for anything you do. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 08:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't say "why are you calling Palestinian Jews Arab", I'm saying why did you make an edit saying "Palestinian Jew" when the wiki article about Palestinians calls Palestinians an Arab group and not a Jewish one. How does that mean "I did bad", I'm literally trying to fix Grammar on the article religion and you won't let me, and your edit isn't factually correct here isn't factually correct. The edits I mentioned aren't backed by sources, because the stuff you put recently goes against all sources, I provide a source and then you say on the talk page I didn't. People are telling me to Assume good faith so I'll do it, I'll assume you're not lying and you've made a mistake, but if that's not the case can you please stop. Also administrator you don't have to take his side just because he gots tens of thousands of edits, 98% of which are reverts of other editors, you should take a side based on the facts presented. [[User:BlackAfrican2006|BlackAfrican2006]] ([[User talk:BlackAfrican2006|talk]]) 09:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::That you will never get it into your head that maybe you should ask before reverting with something like this, something about which you clearly know very little, means it's not going to work out for you here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 09:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm literally providing sources and backing up my claims with what other articles are saying, but apparently I know nothing, you're a god compared to me, apparently I'm nothing, I have to ask to revert your edits now? Why aren't you asking me if you could revert mine then. Saying "you dont provide a source" when I did, saying you don't know anything when I'm literally providing sources that go against your claims, saying you can revert my edits, I can't revert yours, I have to ask you like you're my boss is crazy. Can we please just put "A religion" instead of "Religion" and drop this whole thing, that's a massive grammar issue and not a way to start a sentence. You can revert all my edits I don't care anymore I just wanna go to sleep peacefully this is bothering me. [[User:BlackAfrican2006|BlackAfrican2006]] ([[User talk:BlackAfrican2006|talk]]) 09:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The degree to which you do not listen to others is profound. I've been ignoring your characterization of the first sentence of [[Religion]] as a grammatical error because I and others have literally explained what is going on there to you about ten different times, and you couldn't care less because you've already concluded you're right and your job is to ram yourself against the wall until you break through and get your way. It's infuriating and no one here should have to deal with another second of it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 09:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I literally just came up with the idea to just say "a religion" and not rewrite the whole paragraph like I originally had done because me and GlorytoCalifornia tried making compromises. You haven't explained to me "what's going on ten different times" or a legitimate reason why I'm wrong. I'm supposed to assume good faith, so I assume it, but i must ask this question, are you purposely making stuff up. And just like you I just wanna get this over with but I can't sleep peacefully because the Grammar issue out of anything on the whole page bothers me so much. [[User:BlackAfrican2006|BlackAfrican2006]] ([[User talk:BlackAfrican2006|talk]]) 09:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I absolutely agree with you. @Remsense needs to review [[Narcissism]]. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1D21:A0B0:D1E4:6A0C:1AA4:5BF0|2600:1700:1D21:A0B0:D1E4:6A0C:1AA4:5BF0]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:1D21:A0B0:D1E4:6A0C:1AA4:5BF0|talk]]) 09:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Good point! While an admin is here, could they please kick this annoying sock off [[Problem of evil]]? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 09:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I was going to remove that personal attack, but since you've replied, R, I'll leave it. 2600:1700:1D21:A0B0::/64 blocked for a couple of weeks. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 09:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC).
::::::::::::::You fundamentally expect others to cater to your personal preferences and wishes over anything else, and it's not something I have to respect. I don't care about how quickly you expect your messages, I don't care about your refusal to understand basic sentence structure, I don't care what you pretend site policy people have sent you says while clearly having total contempt for said policy. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 09:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
*Accusations such as, above, BlackAfrican2006's "By the way you broke the edit war policy multiple times on reverting more than 3 times on a page and 24 hours and of course he doesn't get warned or anything because he's an "experienced editor" so he could do no wrong" make a terrible impression: that quote is a complete [[WP:aspersion|aspersion]], since there are no specifics, let alone diffs, and it's also an egregious assumption of bad faith against all admins ("of course he doesn't get warned or anything"). And indeed "I'm reverting your edits i disagree with because I know you reverted me for no reason, so you probably revert other people for no reason". Plus in the whole [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion&oldid=1298241708#Definition_in_lead Definition in lead] section on [[Talk:Religion]], they demonstrate assumptions of bad faith, unreasonableness, and also, sadly, incompetence. This is a completely uncollaborative editor, and I have blocked them indefinitely as a bad fit for Wikipedia. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 09:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC).
{{abot}}

== Abuse from ModaraDo ==
{{atop|status=Blocked|result={{nac}} User blocked by Rsjaffe. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:35% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Gommeh|🎮]]</span> 18:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)}}
After other editors and I have removed excessive quotes at [[Seyyed Amir Hossein Feghhi]], they started hurling abuse and bad faith assumptions:
* at [[User talk:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robby.is.on&diff=prev&oldid=1298262956 my Talk page] at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220_of_Borg&diff=prev&oldid=1298262977 220 of Borg's Talk page]: "You just worship every piece of news that comes your way", "You are a vandal.", "a fool, an irresponsible person, a stubborn individual, and a loser like y.."
* in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seyyed_Amir_Hossein_Feghhi&diff=prev&oldid=1298266731 an edit summary]: "if you want another order, go and make your own damn article and shit on it like when your mother born you, when she shits on the earth and delivers you"
[[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 16:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:Indef, as they came in swinging with their very first edit and didn’t let up thereafter. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 17:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== IPs from Paris appear to be block evasion by Pheonix hoe1998& ==

*{{checkuser|Pheonix hoe1998&}}
*{{rangevandal|2A04:CEC0:0:0:0:0:0:0/32}}

Someone using IPs from Paris got blocked for NOR and SYNTH violations about five weeks ago,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2A04%3ACEC0%3A1923%3A757A%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F64] and they created a username to evade the block: {{u|Pheonix hoe1998&}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman_(Doja_Cat_song)&action=history] The person was adding their own analysis to music articles. The IPs are doing the same thing again, which is that they are comparing chart stats between different albums, songs, and artists to create a narrative arc about the relative success of the music. This is a classic [[WP:SYNTH]] violation. 

This IP range does not break down neatly into /64 groupings, even though it was a /64 that got blocked on 29 May: [[Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:1923:757A:0:0:0:0/64]]. Multiple 64s are at play here. If we block the /32 there will be some collateral damage to good faith users, but I think the damage is minimal. Or we could block two /40s: [[Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:F000:0:0:0:0:0/40]] and [[Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:1900:0:0:0:0:0/40]].

Thanks for your attention. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 17:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== Jane's Revenge ==
* {{checkuser|CanBeDifficultToDealWith}}
* {{articlelinks|Jane's Revenge}}
I was browing recent changes when I saw the following edit summary:
:* ''"Undid revision 1298189162 by [[User:Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]])'' - NOT A BIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PERSON. STATUS OF SOURCE DOES NOT VALIDATE BLANKET REMOVAL OF THE INFORMATION. STOP VANDALIZING WIKIPEDIA." ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane%27s_Revenge&diff=prev&oldid=1298318846 Diff])
After reviewing the edit, I saw they were trying to add the Daily Wire as a source on a BLP-applied article—[[Jane's Revenge]] (BLP notice on [[Talk:Jane's Revenge]])—and I reverted the edit with the following edit summary:
:* "This isn't a valid source for a BLP" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane%27s_Revenge&diff=prev&oldid=1298321076 Diff])
Their following edit, which didn't revert me but said it did, read:
:* "Undid revision 1298321076 by ImaginesTigers (talk) - Oh, look. You got your buddies in on it to gang up on me. Pathetic. Adding more sources that aren't on that ridiculous sources page. Can't delete the information now!" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane%27s_Revenge&diff=prev&oldid=1298322625 Diff]) 
Hoping an admin can take a look. Cheers — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 20:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:Note, I issued a level4 warning due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Shapiro&diff=prev&oldid=1298319442|this] and them skating close to the edge at {{u|Horse Eye's Back}} [[User:Knitsey|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">Knitsey</span>]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]) 20:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:I've edited out the personal attacks and will not engage in them again. That does not solve the issue of the source. Daily Wire is used TWENTY-SIX times for an actual living person's article, so why isn't it okay to use for one small bit of non-contentious, true, and factual information about an Antifa criminal on a page that isn't about a living person? I don't expect an answer. It's amazing that Pink News gets the green light despite being extremely left-wing while Daily Wire is red lighted for everything and anything. [[User:CanBeDifficultToDealWith|CanBeDifficultToDealWith]] ([[User talk:CanBeDifficultToDealWith|talk]]) 20:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::[[WP:DAILYWIRE]]: {{tqq|There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting.}}. If it's being used {{tqq|TWENTY-SIX times for an actual living person's article}}, then that {{tqq|actual living person's article}} needs to be edited to find better sources. Meanwhile, [[WP:PINKNEWS]]: {{tqq|There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used.}}. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, then the page for [[Ben Shapiro]] needs to be edited down quite a bit. That's where it's used 26 times. But I'm sure someone will find a way to justify using it there. [[User:CanBeDifficultToDealWith|CanBeDifficultToDealWith]] ([[User talk:CanBeDifficultToDealWith|talk]]) 20:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::[[WP:ABOUTSELF]], in case you need a policy shortcut to tell you that The Daily Wire can be cited for claims made by a writer for The Daily Wire in The Daily Wire. [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] <span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#FFF">[[User_talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|talk]]</span> 21:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Why is Pink News green, then? Why not yellow? Hmm... [[User:CanBeDifficultToDealWith|CanBeDifficultToDealWith]] ([[User talk:CanBeDifficultToDealWith|talk]]) 20:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:At least they warned us with their name. [[User:LordDiscord|LordDiscord]] ([[User talk:LordDiscord|talk]]) 20:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Careful, there. That sounds like a personal attack, Lord DISCORD. Gotta love that irony. [[User:CanBeDifficultToDealWith|CanBeDifficultToDealWith]] ([[User talk:CanBeDifficultToDealWith|talk]]) 20:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I actually like the name. I had assumed you did that on purpose, although if not, I do apologize (though it’s not a personal attack if there is evidence, which was clearly shown in the thread). In any case, my (unironic, anti-discord) advice would be to apologize for edit warring and personal attacks and to stop the battleground behavior. You are rapidly approaching a ban, and are far more likely to get what you want if you are collaborative and polite. I do think your original edit was in good faith and should have been improved on instead of removed. [[User:LordDiscord|LordDiscord]] ([[User talk:LordDiscord|talk]]) 21:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Hmm... Now the two valid sources I added are being removed. Yeah, no bias here. Nope. Not a bit. None. Squat. Diddly. Zip. Nunca. Nada. Zilch. [[User:CanBeDifficultToDealWith|CanBeDifficultToDealWith]] ([[User talk:CanBeDifficultToDealWith|talk]]) 21:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
: CanBeDifficultToDealWith is referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane%27s_Revenge&diff=prev&oldid=1298330199 this edit] by [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|Ohnoitsjamie]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane%27s_Revenge&diff=prev&oldid=1298330689 CBDTDW's subsequent revert]. I believe that is CBDTDW's <s>third</s> fourth revert on that page in the past 24 hours. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 21:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:: I tried to reach a compromise by replacing partisan sources with one from [[Reason Magazine]] (which is greenlit on [[WP:RSP]]), but that was reverted. I supposed I'm [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]] now, at this point a temp (or indef) block for edit warring and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] is warranted. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 21:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Even ignoring all the histrionics and personal attacks, removing the information that they like when supported by a reliable source instead of TDW seems to be a clear and intentional violation of [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|WP:POINT]] [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 21:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::CBDTDW blocked 31h for [[WP:3RR]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== Page move vandalism cleanup ==


There are a few [[Special:Contributions/MarcosTheSecurityGuard|instances of page-move vandalism]] from a user I just blocked. I haven't done much with moving pages back over a re-direct, so I was hoping for some assistance in cleaning this up. [[User:Joyous!|Joyous!]] [[User_talk:Joyous%21|Noise!]] 23:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like there's really only one page left to move back, which is [[Marven Gardens]] (it is at [[A plane destroyed Marvin Gardens?]]). Since I don't have admin or page mover privileges, I did what I could which is tag the redirected original page name with CSD G6 to be able to move the page back. —&nbsp;[[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP&nbsp;499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 00:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)