Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
  • Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

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

Start a new discussion

Stickhandler posting transphobic vandalism on the Epstein page

[1] Stickhandler edited the Jeffrey Epstein article to call a transgender Epstein victim a "crossdressing man" and change her pronouns to he/him.

Looking at his edit history, he has also been edit warring and POV-pushing about gender affirming care and other such topics in Gordon Guyatt.[2][3][4]

Along with other edits on Gordon Guyatt.[5]

All of these edits are from yesterday. I originally posted this at AE, but in 10k edits somehow he hadn't been issued a CTOP warning, so I was told that I could take it here.

Snokalok (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Tagging @Cdjp1and @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist as instructed Snokalok (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

My comment from when this was misfiled at Enforcement requests: [6] - In this reversion made hours after the Enforcement request case was opened, the edit summary provided by Stickhandler was strange that ppl keep on deleting useful info - why is that exactly?, when in the edit summaries reverting Stickhandler's bold addition and the discussion that was started on the talk page on 10 September, detail that the issue people have with including the opinion of Higgins is that the article is an opinion piece by a journalist with no relevant qualifications with regards to the provision of medical treatment. I would say that the answer to why is that exactly? is rather evident. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems like an open and shut WP:HID case to me. GENSEX Topic ban at minimum. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll briefly restate what I said at AE:

• Stickhandler very rarely uses edit summaries, at max 2% of edits have a summary over 2 words.[7]
• This seems intentionally misleading: This edit was labelled ce[8]
  • It removed noting the SPLC designated SEGM a hate group
  • Introduces the name of a group (which is OR, the sources don't use it)
  • Removes Guyatt's comments critical of SEGM
  • Links Michael W. Higgins. The immediate edit before was me delinking him noting its a completely different dude[9] He later relinks it when somebody else corrects it[10]

He has repeatedly denied breaching 3RR while edit warring to include an opinion piece on medical treatment by somebody with no medical qualifications

GENSEX topic ban minimum - more importantly Requirement to use descriptive edit summaries Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Almost forgot, Stickhandler responded at length at AE.[11] Absolutely no acknowledgement of calling a trans woman a crossdressing man.

The edit speaks for itself In October 2007, transgender model Ava Cordero alleged that Epstein had abused herthe crossdressing man and filed suit accordingly, however thisit was widely dismissed, with press at the time instead making allegations about Cordero's mental health and mocking herhis gender identity.

Straight up bigotry.

In that statement, and at the talk page, he says I withdrew my objection to the undue opinion piece. I never did. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Stickhandler agreed to abide by the relevant guidelines on his talk page. Because of this, I'd prefer to avoid a sanction as long as disruption does not recur. However, if he makes any edits like the Epstein one in the future, I would support a topic ban. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that even if GENSEX wasn't a CTOP, this edit is still enough for a TBAN. This is an editor with over 10k edits, he's not a child. Snokalok (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the edit was unacceptable, but since this is their first offense and they agreed to not violate the guidelines in the future, it is okay to let them off with a stern warning here. Again, if they do anything like that edit again, I would support a TBAN, but I'd like to give them a chance to change their ways before jumping to sanctions, since there is no history of disruption. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, 10k edits, and was actively disruptively edit warring elsewhere in the topic area. This isn't a new editor. Snokalok (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. They said they won't try to pull this crap again, and I'm giving them a chance to abide by their word. If they didn't give that statement saying they would stop, I would have supported a TBAN, and I will support one if they cause any more disruption, but a warning is all that is needed at this time. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

And I'm saying that the Epstein edit shows a sufficient amount of NOTHERE on the topic that their word is not sufficient Snokalok (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

My personal philosophy is that if somebody is saying bigoted things about minorities, a block/ban is the bare minimum and not punative. It's preventative in that it makes it clear that such displays of open bigotry are not acceptable, both to the editor but also others, which deters bigotry and means it doesn't drive away effected minorities. Conversely, slaps on the wrist for saying bigoted things send a message to the editor, other editors, and targeted minorities that such bigotry is tolerated, pushing the overton window.

They said they won't try to pull this crap again, and I'm giving them a chance to abide by their word. I'm all for 2nd chances and actual growth, but per my earlier comment, at no point has Stickhandler shown any contrition for making bigoted statements. The statement at AE didn't address it[12] and the talk page acknowledgement they are now aware GENSEX is a CTOP[13] is not a recognition that they put open bigotry in a WP article. I might be missing something, but has Stickhandler actually addressed that issue specifically? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I had left a note on their talk page date they acknowledged the CTOP informing them of MOS:GENDERID and they haven't edited since. Depending on their next edits, a TBAN/block may or may not be warranted. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally, I'm weighing the previous selective silence heavily if that makes sense. The AE case OP notes the misgendering. The first admin to respond notes that the first edit is very unacceptable and similar future edits will result in a block.. Stickhandlers statement in response completely sidesteps that. In addition to doubling down on an insistence they didn't edit-war. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Stickhandler has had multiple issues with edit warring and BLP issues before (not to mention general poor editing). A short list of recent issues:

• Calls Epstein a "Wanker" in wikivoice[14][15]
• Creates category:Apex sex predators and adds someone to it[16]. I'll note the CSD notes no articles actual use that term, and Stickhandlers defense was We need not be too concerned by WP:BLP, because these men are convicts[17]
• Translates an article incredibly incorrectly, doesn't respond to questions about it[18]
• Adds unsourced information to a BLP and keeps doubling down on it[19]
• Edit wars at a BLP to introduce content, and insists they're not actually edit warring[20]
• When told by new page patrol that an article seems biased, says it is their responsibility to fix and they are neutral.[21]

That's ignoring the dozens if not hundreds of notifications of improper references on these pages, speedy deletions of categories, draftications of poorly written or translated articles, etc.

Put simply, they seem to create a lot more work for other editors than do good for the Enclyopedia. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware of those prior issues, thank you for bringing those diffs up. Judging by that, this guy should be nowhere near BLPs. I'd support a TBAN from biographies of living persons. This is beyond unacceptable and needs to stop. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I support the engagement with them to resolve this issue, and blocks or bans are unnecssary this time, but I think Stickhandler has pretty much exhausted the supply of WP:AGF, and is now in the last-chance saloon. Perhaps they might want voluntarily to abstain from editing from WP:GENSEX articles for the foreseeable future? — The Anome (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Given the diffs brought up by YFNS above, I would suggest a partial block from article space until Stickhandler addresses these issues, since they appeared unable to address their transphobic edits when they were brought up at AE. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I support this Snokalok (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It does look like the user is aware of what WP:CTOP's are, and BLP more specifically, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 August 24: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia where they cited WP:BLP on a question of contentious topic nature. Also User talk:Stickhandler - Wikipedia from a year ago when @Lklundin alerted them about POV pushing on a CTOP (Yes it would have been better if they had used {{alert}} as they should have, but WP:CTOP says "should", not "must" (per the CTOP reform text, which has not been superseded) and WP:CTOP was linked), and this edit summary where again, they cited BLP when they re-instated uncited material (rv by @TylerBurden).

So while they have not received a warning for WP:GENSEX specifically, I think it is reasonable to assume they know what a CTOP is and given their history of having cited WP:BLP, that they are CTOP aware for BLP's per An editor who has not received an alert may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor: per Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic, since they've been citing BLP themself several times, so this comment appears not quite accurate (for CTOPs in general, for GENSEX, yes).

User talk:Stickhandler: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia shows a severe misunderstanding of what is okay to state in wikivoice and the argument of "synonym accepted by wiki" is peculiar at best, but it follows a pattern of creative-writing as Talk:Michael Wolff (journalist): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia shows. So, between those instances of creative writing and this flat out violation of BLP/GENSEX, and indicative more broadly of WP:HID/WP:NQP type actions. Accidental misgendering, while still harmful, is one thing, but intentionally changing a trans women's pronouns to a phrase that was used in Nazi-Germany to refer to trans women is not something that I think we should condone in any way, shape, or form, which if it was an SPA or IP vandal would result in an instant block at AIV and RD2, this leans more into a WP:NOTHERE territory to productively build an encyclopedia in certain topic spaces, particularly on the area of people/BLP's and GENSEX.

So, I'd suggest a BLP topic ban at a minimum, since it doesn't look like their previous edit issues are limited to GENSEX, but really BLP more broadly. I'd say the egregious nature of the GENSEX violation warrants a CTOP ban too, whether they were alerted to or not. If not already amounting to NOTHERE. Raladic (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Support a topic ban/pblock from GENSEX and BLPs Seems necessary considering the history. Very, very close to the WP:NOTHERE limit, I feel. Silverseren^C 22:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll go a step further and say this is worth an indef. If a newbie did the same, it wouldn't even be a question, they'd be gone as fast as they came in. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Indef stop handling established accounts and transphobia with kid gloves. These edits are disgustingly bigoted and have no good faith interpretation. Dronebogus (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether a topic ban or indefinite block would be the best solution, but this definitely shouldn't be left with no action, especially since there doesn't seem to have been acknowledgement of the BLP & edit warring issues. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 17:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite This thread went up ten minutes before his AE reply, he made a few more edits, and since then after a month straight of making tens to hundreds of edits a day, he's suddenly gone silent. He clearly saw it, can we impose your suggestion? Snokalok (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely partial-blocked Stickhandler from mainspace and draftspace until they can address the concerns raised in this thread about serial BLP violations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all for your copious work to list my many failings, as you see them. Are you all done now, so that I may respond, or need I wait before you exhaust yourselves? I'm unfamiliar with this process on wiki. It seems not to be a legal process, or a Due process according to the "Rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others." In such a punishment of thought-crime, normally one would expect the Due Process Clause to be observed, specifically Vitek v. Jones (1980). I am reliably informed that "The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires.. written notice, an adversar[ial] hearing before an independent decision-maker, [and] written findings." Other jurisdictions have similar requirements.

Snokalok's "since then after a month straight of making tens to hundreds of edits a day, he's suddenly gone silent. He clearly saw it, can we impose your suggestion?" plea (here) to the collective is interesting as he confers upon himself the status of an omniscient observer. Put simply, I tended to other business while I waited for the first step in this process to complete itself. I must thank @Tamzin: for reducing my task to addressing "serial WP:BLP" violations. Can I ask my accusers to summarize their indictment because, put together, the foregoing looks incredibly haphazard.

I must protest the change of venue from AE - see User talk:Stickhandler#AE Notice(!) - to this one here, ANI as I gather, immediately after I had replied to the AE noticeboard. This change was requested again by Snokalok who seems to be on a power trip. I feel that this change is an Abuse of process, and so please excuse my extended absence while things cooled down.

Also, thanks to SchazjMD for User talk:Stickhandler#Introduction to contentious topics - posted to my talk page well after User talk:Stickhandler#AE Notice Snokalok's intemperate AE notice - and QuicoleJR's friendly and constructive observation thereon.

Stickhandler (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Stickhandler: I'm not the original accuser, but the issue seemingly boils down to two things you did:

1. The creation of Category:Apex sex predators and placement of living people in it, in violation of WP:OR and WP:BLP.
2. Your recent edits referring to a transgender Epstein victim as a crossdressing man and intentionally using the incorrect pronouns, in violation of MOS:GENDERID. This one is particularly bad as we have several transgender editors, and transphobia is disruptive.

There also seems to be some contention regarding your edits to Gordon Guyatt, but I am not particularly familiar with that issue and therefore cannot summarize that part for you. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Saying you intentionally didn't respond "while things cooled down" is a bold strategy when your first reply here attempts to characterize this as "punishment of thought-crime", and accusing an editor of considering themselves to be omniscient and being on a power trip, despite them having no power over you. Might be good to cut the personal attacks. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright, putting aside the immediate personal attacks (which are their own issue) and the fact that I find it *very* hard to believe that you know nothing of AE or ANI given that you have a shockingly high edit count, have been on this site for years, and have a history of editing in areas subject to CTOP restrictions per Raladic; let's ask the more simple, immediate questions.

1. What was your reason for making the Epstein trans edit?
2. What was your reason for creating the category Apex Sex Predators and putting people in it?
3. What was your reason for the edit related to Guyatt and SEGM listed by YFNS above?

Take as many words as you need Snokalok (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this process on wiki. It seems not to be a legal process, or a Due process according to the "Rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others." In such a punishment of thought-crime, normally one would expect the Due Process Clause to be observed, specifically Vitek v. Jones (1980). I am reliably informed that "The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires.. written notice, an adversar[ial] hearing before an independent decision-maker, [and] written findings." Other jurisdictions have similar requirements. AN/I is not a court of law, and is therefore not bound by the 14th Amendment or any similar requirements from other jurisdictions. Being a part of the Wikipedia community is a privilege, not a right, and there are certain behaviors that can cause one to lose that privilege very quickly. - ZLEA ^TǀC 02:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we're likely to get a clearer answer from Stickhandler on their transphobic edits being honest. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Let's simplify this: Someone being p-blocked just from mainspace+draftspace is a generally undesirable state of affairs, because we're simultaneously signaling we don't trust them to contribute to the product we create, but do trust them to be around behind the scenes, which rarely makes sense. So, I don't intend for this to stand as a p-block indefinitely. As I've already told Stickhandler, if they can explain the edits they've made and credibly commit to not doing the same again, I'm willing to unblock them. Conversely, if this falls off of AN/I without that happening, I will upgrade this to a site-indef, with recommendation that any unblock include a TBAN from trans people and sex offenses (union, not intersection). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia website, which is administered by a bunch of people whose hobby is to administer an encyclopedia website, and while we try to observe some basic semblance of justice and equality in our proceedings, that is pretty hard to do even in real life where people get paid lots of money to do so.

I think you are broadly correct in your observation that AN/I is a bizarre and confusing venue in which you are not given much of a way to defend yourself while you are being accused of a bunch of things by random interlocutors. However, I think you are incorrect on the merits of most of your assertions, and the gravamen of the thing you've been dragged here for doing is (if true) rather reckless and crass, as well as ignorant and against the rules. I would recommend you try to be contrite, or at least polite, whether or not it seems fair, and failing that, you will probably have to go find some other website to go hang out on. jp×g🗯️ 08:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

User Yousuf31 - AfC "Shopping" and Recreating Articles Deleted Following AfD

Yousuf31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been debating bringing this to AnI, however in recreating an article of theirs that was deleted at AfD pushed me over the edge. @Yousuf31 has had a rather tumultuous short history of editing. First off, they have a history of repeatedly re-submitting articles at AfC after they were denied with few or no changes (most recently this one). Repeated re-submissions without major changes or updates, like they did with Air Shabelle, at the very least clogs the AfC system and leads me to believe the user is simply hoping an approver doesn't notice the previous denials. They've even gone so far as to bypass the AfC process by moving draft articles that had been previously denied to mainspace, as they did here.

The straw that broke the camel's back was today, when this user re-created the article 1944 South African Air Force C-47 crash, which had been previously deleted as the result of an AfD.

This user has been gently encouraged to learn more about editing, reminded of rules, and warned of their behavior more times than I can count, for everything from requests to leave edit summaries to using reliable sources, both in AfD discussions and on their talk page. Nothing seems to get through to them, though. Warnings that have since been removed from the user's talk page can be found, here, here, and here. I was originally operating under the assumption that it was a good-faith editor that just didn't really understand the policies. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think it's a combination of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR that is resulting in editors having to spend an inordinate amount of time cleaning up afterwards.

I'm not sure that a ban is necessary, but having confirmed status revoked and at least a temporary topic ban might get the message across. nf utvol (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, nf utvol,

It's not clear what extended-confirmed status has to do with the problems this editor has and you didn't even propose what subject a topic ban would cover. There seems to be a collection of problems here and the desire to sanction the editor for them but not a clear focus on why you chose these sanctions and what positive effects they would have. They seem more like a punishment of the editor than a solution the problems that are occurring and how they would even help resolve those. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I'm just spitballing at this point for alternatives to a ban. My reasoning with the removal of the confirmed status would prevent the user from doing things like moving draft articles rejected at AfC to mainspace, and a temporary topic ban (Aviation related articles, maybe?) might be a forcing function to make them take the requests to review policies more seriously. nf utvol (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Resubmitting an AfC page that you didn't really change repeatedly is low-level disruptive, but they may not know what they're doing.

Just this:

The straw that broke the camel's back was today, when this user re-created the article 1944 South African Air Force C-47 crash, which had been previously deleted as the result of an AfD.

What's the issue with trying to revive an article at AfC after it was wiped at AfD? That's literally one of the use cases for AfC. I did the same thing myself after this AfD, when I later made this via AfC. Raising the dead like that is a good thing. I'm actually eyeing about half a dozen AfD losers on a few topics that I think could sail past AfC, whenever I have time.

AfD is never meant to be eternal. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not what happened. The article was taken to AfD for lack of notability, then recreated soon after with no substantial changes. It's hard to state it was done in ignorance when the following notification pops up before the page is created: If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. If you want to re-create an article that was deleted at AfD, you shouldn't just try to shove it through AfC again, you need to work with the closer to resolve the issues (if they're even fixable). nf utvol (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, disagree on the post-AfD scenario needing any engagement with either the AfD nominator nor the closer. The moment the thing closes they are out of the picture and have no policy defined stake in the future outcome of the article birthing again. They are just random schmucks like all of us then. If I found a red link that died at AfD a week or a year ago, I'm not going to even bother the nominator nor the closer. If I can save it, it's just getting dropped into AfC. They have no special rights (nor courtesy anything owed). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I recommend taking a moment to review WP:DRV. There's a whole process for deletion review that should be followed that you're suggesting should be bypassed. nf utvol (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That's to undelete the prior version. I'm talking about total first-character rewrites from scratch as I did with Christopher Mellon. DRV is not required in such scenarios. There is no policy that says it does, and I've myself proven that you can trivially take even a "constroversial" topic page that died at AfD, toss it into AfC as a fresh draft, pass AfC, and it's done. AfD has no special power over AfC or vice versa under policy. Consensus changes. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying. I get it now, sorry. Regardless, that's not what happened here...the user in question just re-wrote the previous article without making substantive changes that would have fixed any of the notability issues raised in the previous AfD. nf utvol (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

All good. I still worry this person just doesn't know how to do things. Eager people can be good contributors if someone shows them. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I think with Yousuf31 they're fast entering WP:CIR territory. Yesterday they decided to just add the Good Article template to an article on the basis it has reliable sources and is long. I can find no evidence it went through the Good Article process, and if it had it would have failed. And they're removing notability templates on the basis that they have sources. At this point it's quite clear they don't understand what makes something notable. They've been informed. They've been warned. They've had things explained to them (repeatedly). Their only response is to delete the items from their talk page and continue doing what they want while ignoring what everyone is saying to them. Canterbury Tail talk 16:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The number of times they have blanked their talk page is quite impressive. I have a feeling there is at least a language barrier here, but they also don't seem to understand that removing notices doesn't just make the issue go away. This is like 30% WP:CIR and 70% a language barrier, if I had to guess. The combination makes it difficult to communicate changes to them, which then either aren't understood or aren't comprehended... A short block might give them a jolt and make them pay more attention? Something needs to get their attention so they follow policy or else this is likely to get worse before it gets better. MrAureliusR_{Yell at me!} 17:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I've posted a message on their talk page encouraging them to come here and get involved, since they deleted the previous ANI notice. Lets see what happens. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yousuf31: This editor continues to be non-responsive to talk page messages, though they continue to be active making it unlikely they simply haven't noticed their talk page messages. Today, they continued their pattern of disruptive editing by moving a page sent to draft following a failed AfC to mainspace without any substantial changes. nf utvol (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, since no one else seems willing to step in, and they're continuing their pattern of disruptive editing, I've given them a 24 hour block with a warning it will happen again if they continue to ignore the community, refuse to understand notability and continue their disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Killing of Charlie Kirk needs 24x7 admin eyes right now

• Killing of Charlie Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The whole thing is turning into a trainwreck; there's maybe two separate admin fights (I can't keep up after not looking for half a day), backlogs of edit requests, some admin (apparently?) did a massive WP:BLPCRIME violation twice by editing the subject name in, and everyone is upset.

There are not one but two massive RfCs to A) rename the page, and B) name the shooter, and us regular editors can't really do anything to control this. I'm not going to spend an hour digging out diffs; the talk page is being edited rapid fire.

The page is getting absolute crazy traffic on the page views. Help is needed. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

What actual thing exactly are you asking to be done? The page has already been restricted, requiring administrator access only, and there are more than a dozen administrators actively editing the article. This will sort itself out. Anachronist's acceptance of a sourced edit request turned out to not be ideal -- not because of any "massive WP:BLPCRIME violation" but because an active RFC was going on -- but it was quickly reverted and Anachronist had no objection.

In any case, I think it's really bad form (dare I say, not very polite?) to throw out a charge of a serious violation of BLP policy on ANI and make no effort to inform the editor involved. I have informed Anachronist for you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The backlog of edit requests really could use some additional eyes. No comment on the rest of this. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 14:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Protecting the talk page also doesn't stem the tide of edit requests, it just shifts the burden over to those who monitor WP:RFED. As has been pointed out, I accepted one change there, which was a mistake. Some eyes on RFED would be helpful; it seems like only me and a couple other people were looking at it yesterday. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, just wait. The article's been downshifted from goldlock to bluelock. Here come the fresh new ANI threads. Ravenswing 19:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That's supposed to be gold? I always thought it was an unappealing shade of brown. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Gold's actual colour is an unappealing shade of brown, rather than the bright yellowish colour the media makes it out to be. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Join the discussion at File talk:Full-protection-shackle.svg about changing this. I had uploaded a new version (which you can see at File:Full-protection-shackle.svg but it was reverted and now we're discussing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

On the talk page a user directly mentioned me and accused me of not following NPOV and "wanting to tarnish the name of a man they despise" for voting oppose on the renaming because at the time it had been under 24 hours since the event actually took place and I felt it would be a better idea to wait until we had more sources out. I additionally mentioned that I would not be opposed to a renaming given more time. When asked to withdraw their comments by another editor they did not. Is there anything that is able to be done about this? The comment is still up and I am still directly mentioned on a page that is getting a lot of traffic. Kachow03 (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Also if I need to move this to another page I will, I'm a newer editor, I was honestly not sure of the process for this and was pointed here! Kachow03 (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That editor has been trouted on his talk page for casting WP:ASPERSIONS. If it happens again, the user can be blocked. Because that comment has already been used as an example of original research in the "notes for the closer" section below, it should stay. Any administrator who closes the discussion would recognize the argument as bogus and not consider it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw that, on the article for the guy himself (Charlie Kirk) there was a smart-aleck edit adding a "see also" section whose sole link was Horst Wessel (a member of the Nazi Party who was famously assassinated). The comparison is obvious, and defamatory -- this article has had thirty five million pageviews so far, and when I found it it had been there for two hours. It's already ECP, but this seems kind of alarming to me, since it is the kind of thing that makes us look like puerile morons to everyone who sees it, which is currently a truly gobsmacking amount of people. jp×g🗯️ 08:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems to have been added by @Jaydenwithay:, if that is useful at all. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 08:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Didn't realize you already warned them on their talk page 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 08:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

User aggressively engaging in disruptive editing, edit warring, and misrepresenting sources

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

Computeracct appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE, with their aggressive edit warring, disruptive edits, and misrepresentation of sources to whitewash what have been extensively covered by reliable sources to be propaganda films, namely The Bengal Files and The Kashmir Files.

Computeracct resumed edit warring to whitewash The Bengal Files after its full protection automatically expired.[22] Computeracct had been already told to stop calling reliable sources unreliable, [23] however, Computeracct went a step further by calling The Wire unreliable on The Kashmir Files while removed long-standing WP:STABLE content.[24] This is contrary to the community consensus on RSN, where The Wire has been discussed to be reliable.[25] I am also going to mention that this user has admitted using AI tools for writing their messages.[26]

Computeracct has severely misrepresented sources on this edit by using this source when changing "Reception among Pandits has been mixed" to "Reception among Pandits has been mostly positive". The sources previously were reliable and gauged the consensus of the entire Kashmiri Pandit community regarding the film. The user added two sources to shift the narrative. The first source added is from well around 3 years after the film has released and does not dwell on a review of said film, rather focusing on the 2025 Pahalgam attack. The second source added merely shares views of two cricketers, rather than attributing their views to be coming from "Kashmiri Pandits", also violating WP:CASTEID. There is no verification about their caste or community in the given source. This edit was reverted by Black Kite,[27] who urged Computeracct to discuss the edits.

For all the above disruption, Computeracct has been given multiple warnings for edit warring, mislabeling reliable sources as unreliable, and for his misrepresentation of sources.[28][29] None of this has stopped Computeracct, who is only doubling down with the edit warring and misrepresentation of sources.

Computeracct went back to edit warring on The Kashmir Files by restoring their edit. The user made no changes to their version of the edit, which continue with all the same problems as stated above. Contrary to the instructions provided to the user here, no discussion on the content was initiated.

As a WP:1AM, Computeracct is flooding the talk page of Talk:The Bengal Files, and cherrypicking reviews from pro-Indian government outlets (see Godi media) in order to show why the criticism against the movie must get no weight.[30][31] Computeracct is now calling The Quint an unreliable source only because it has criticised the movie.[32] If that was not bad enough, the user is now baselessly accusing other editors to be a "case of WP: IDHT (I did not hear that)"[33] on Talk:The Bengal Files just because they are not agreeing with his attempts to remove the reliably sourced term "propaganda film" from the lead of the article.

This latest edit by Computeracct should be considered the last straw. The user is cherrypicking the reviews from pro-Indian government outlets to whitewash this globally recognised hateful Islamophobic propaganda film. While the article on the film covers in extensive details how reliable scholarship and reputed sources have called it propaganda and a distortion of facts for Hindu nationalist and Islamophobic political purposes (See The_Kashmir_Files#Political_messaging_and_historical_accuracy), the user claims the movie is telling "true incidents that happened in Kashmir and is not a propaganda film", and it is "the truth, is authentic, shows true incidents etc." This is a significant violation of WP:HOAX. As seen above, this has only further cemented the fact that the user is solely and exclusively editing on Wikipedia for the purposes of WP:SOAP and WP:RGW.

Given all of this, for his edit warring, misuse of sources, and general disruptive behaviour to a topic designated as contentious, as per WP:HATEDISRUPT, I believe the user needs to be blocked. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 08:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• I had seen the mentioned edits to Talk:The Kashmir Files and also found them to have completely crossed the line.[34] The retaliatory report below, together with the false accusations of "malicious lies and personal attacks", by Computeracct has made it easier for me to support a NOTHERE block. Azuredivay (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Your link [207] is entirely unrelated.

  You haven't stated what line I crossed, let alone, providing evidence for it. Computeracct (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Fixed it. Here is the correct diff. The fact that you still dont understand even after the explanation already provided in the original report tells a lot. Azuredivay (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  I have addressed the things in the original report.

  That's a talk page comment with WP: RSP and or WP: RS sources. No line crossed there.

  I don't recall having interacted with you (could be wrong, so correct me if I am wrong). So may I know why you jumped into the conversation without even putting anything on my talk page or in the topics talk page? Computeracct (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Computeracct's response below shows they are more focused on attacking the OP rather than addressing the concerns raised about their editing, especially their pro-Hindutva POV pushing in the contentious topic area. I could think of a topic ban, however, the WP:CIR issue with them is obvious and with these many behavioral issues, an indef block would be an ideal solution. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  I too support an indef block, given all the issues with the user. Also, they appear to have de-coupled their complaint from this thread and made it a separate complaint in this noticeboard. They seem more hell-bent on attacking me back rather than engaging with the specific concerns in good faith. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Incorrect. You are the one who has engaging in bad faith and spreading falsehoods against me as logged over here.

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User indulging in lies, distortions, personal attacks against me

  You had already logged complaints based on falsehoods/inaccuracies to an admin:

  User talk:Firefangledfeathers#Computeracct

  and admin had rejected your complaint.

  -------------------

  I had initially logged the complaint against EarthDude separately, but copy pasted response over here. Then it was merged to avoid duplication.

  Then I decided to keep the defense and complaint separate as noted in the talk page history. Computeracct (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Actually I did address them properly below now with purely for addressing his allegations.

  The complaint is lodged separately.

  Edit: I just checked and saw. I disagreed with your comment and substantiated with stuff from WP: ICTF and or WP: RSP sources. you didn't respond to the merit of what I had written in the talk page and now are jumping in here? May I know?

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Lead_edit

  Everyone has some bias. So it'd be well advised to stick to actual merit and policy. Computeracct (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• 1. "Computeracct had been already told to stop calling reliable sources unreliable, [196] "

A) I had already mentioned that The Scroll is not under reliable sources in WP: ICTF and WP: RSP. so me saying it is not in reliable sources was correct.

EarthDude did not address that and he is incorrect.

2. "Computeracct went back to edit warring on The Kashmir Files by restoring their edit. The user made no changes to their version of the edit, which continue with all the same problems as stated above. Contrary to the instructions provided to the user here, no discussion on the content was initiated."

A) incorrect. The problem was with changing the summary from mixed to positive, not about adding the content of Suresh Raina view (cricketer and Kashmiri Pandit). I did not change anything related to the summary again (which was the point of contention)

I also added a reliable source for Suresh Raina being a Kashmiri Pandit. So EarthDude stating that I did not change anything or edit warred again here is simply false.

3. "As a WP:1AM, Computeracct is flooding the talk page of Talk:The Bengal Files, and cherrypicking reviews from pro-Indian government outlets (see Godi media) in order to show why the criticism against the movie must get no weight.[203][204] "

A) Please note that he is bringing in his own bias and politics. And attacking things that go against it.

I showed reviews from sources which are WP: ICTF reliable and or WP: RSP reliable

I never said criticism against the movie must gain no weight. I said both sides have reliable parts. So yet another lie from him.

"Therefore I propose we write it this way:

Some critics say it shows the truth/history correctly, while some have said it distorts history.

This satisfies WP: NPOV and WP: Balance and information is from reliable sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view

with these above sources cited for each."

Talk:The Bengal Files#Whether the movie distorts history or not

4. "This latest edit by Computeracct should be considered the last straw. The user is cherrypicking the reviews from pro-Indian government outlets to whitewash this globally recognised hateful Islamophobic propaganda film. While the article on the film covers in extensive details how reliable scholarship and reputed sources have called it propaganda and a distortion of facts for Hindu nationalist and Islamophobic political purposes (See The_Kashmir_Files#Political_messaging_and_historical_accuracy), the user claims the movie is telling "true incidents that happened in Kashmir and is not a propaganda film", and it is "the truth, is authentic, shows true incidents etc." This is a significant violation of WP:HOAX. As seen above, this has only further cemented the fact that the user is solely and exclusively editing on Wikipedia for the purposes of WP:SOAP and WP:RGW."

The user Earthdude is just showing his significant bias/political leanings over here and making sweeping/broadstroke assertions for which he does not have evidence.

I put reviews from WP:ICTF and WP: RSP reliable sources.

His claim that this is WP: HOAX, WP: SOAP and WP: RGW are based on nothing but innuendo and falsehoods.

Same thing for that I am solely exclusively here for such stuff. I have made contributions to many movie related pages (not just these 2 movies), many cricketer related pages, some tennis related pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madharaasi&oldid=1309866818 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sachin_Tendulkar&oldid=1309748247 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sachin_Tendulkar&oldid=1309744421 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Waugh&oldid=1309697563 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Nalbandian&oldid=1309717771

5. About this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bengal_Files&diff=prev&oldid=1311106214:

See here, I had twice shown 3 reliable sources (2 WP: ICTF + Subhash K. Jha who has written and is writing for WP: RSP reliable source(s))

User ZDRX said for the 2nd time that these are fringe sources. Which is why I correctly said it was a case of WP: IDHT.

Please see the full convo here

Talk:The Bengal Files#Whether the movie distorts history or not

So EarthDude is incorrect here again. Also note that ZDRX did not respond there after I pointed out that he was indulging in WP: IDHT.

6. About the AI part

I wrote the comment on my own and polished it a little with the help of AI. See Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence where AI can be used for editing (provided it is guided+checked by humans)

So saying I used AI to write the comment is a distortion.

Edit: I only use AI to polish only a very small % of comments and it is definitely not against policy. So this not a basis for any complaint

Computeracct (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Indent fixed. Northern Moonlight 17:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

My advice would be that you not use AI even to "polish"- most of us would prefer to hear from you directly. It may not be forbidden by policy, but it makes you seem less authentic. We don't need your comments to be grammatically and stylistically perfect, just talk to us.

Anyone interested may contribute to this discussion or comment on your edits. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I only use it for a pretty small % of my comments.

As it is not against policy, I'm sure you would agree there is no need to bring it up here especially as I had pointed out the same thing to EarthDude previously:

User talk:Firefangledfeathers#Computeracct Computeracct (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Computeracct: If you don't want people to bring it up, I suggest you don't do it. As long as you continue to do it, expect it to be brought up. 15:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Your point is taken. I won't do it anymore.

But do you think the same person bringing it up for the 2nd time in a complaint here - after it has been responded to the 1st time in a complaint and shown as not against wiki policy is good faith behaviour? Computeracct (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Even now, you are either ignoring or misrepresenting what I have said and my concerns. For instance, I said you misrepresented sources and that you had framed reliable sources as unreliable, citing your incident with The Wire. in response, you jumped to The Scroll which wasn't even a part of this discussion. I never even mentioned the Scroll here. Without even fully taking into consideration the other stuff I wrote regarding your misrepresentation of sources, you immediately jumped to the next point. That or when you said 'The problem was with changing the summary from mixed to positive, not about adding the content of Suresh Raina view", which is completely incorrect too, as when the admin Black Kite reverted you and urged you to gain consensus, he had reverted your entire edit, not just the summary. These were just 2 examples. This pattern seems to continue for most of your response. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

1 You did reference the Scroll here. The 188 reference.

Computeracct had been already told to stop calling reliable sources unreliable, [188]

So yes, it was part of the discussion.

So you are incorrect again

2. As far as what the admin Black Kite did and wrote,this is what he wrote "woah, absolutely not - that will need a discussion on the talk page, please"

I understand why an admin would say a consensus would be needed for making the change in summary.

But I don't think a consensus would be needed for adding the part about Suresh Raina with reliable sources. why would that be a requirement?

You are incorrect on both parts and you being incorrect/stating falsehoods is a clear pattern documented and shown by me multiple times now. Computeracct (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and several other editors had defended Scroll for being reliable. However, my main point was regarding you crossing the line with your removal of content by The Wire and framing that as unreliable. Further, I added your misrepresentation of sources during several other disputes you had involved yourself with. When I said The Scroll was not a part of the discussion or that I had not mentioned it, I meant that it was not the primary aspect of the issue with your misrepresentation of sources, it was a peripheral one for that. However, you did not delve into any of that, and simply hyper focused on the Scroll before ignoring everything else and advancing to the next point. Same thing with all of your other given points. Not to mention you continue to defend your edits for The Kashmir Files and in the process, attempt to openly whitewash a Hindu nationalist and Islamophobic ahistorical film. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

1. And I have addressed others parts as well. Maybe you did not check properly.

2. Several other editors defending Scroll based on what? Just personal opinions. Not policy.

3. About Kashmir Files: You are again bringing in your significant bias and politics into this. And your accusation of whitewash is yet another instance of you personally attacking me here.

I put stuff as per Wiki policies. (reliable sources)

@The Black Kite: Please note time and again, @EarthDude is bringing in his own politics and significant bias repeatedly instead of talking about merit and policies.

And attacking me personally.

His characterization of The Kashmir Files movie is incorrect IMO. People can have different opinions on that of course, but that's a matter of topic of discussion on an article talk page, not here. Computeracct (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Computeracct has falsified yet another source[35] now to claim that there is self identification for Suresh Raina being a Kashmiri Pandit, when the cited source has no quote or statement by Raina where he identifies himself as Kashmiri Pandit[36]. I'm also failing to see why a random tweet by a cricketer is of any relevance to this film. He is only repeating himself[37] and is still not willing to understand the basic policies. Orientls (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I asked first if that was a proper source of self-identification and you didn't respond why it wasn't. Just stated it false at first without saying why.

  Suresh Raina is a Kashmiri Pandit (not just a cricketer) and that is well known to people. Just because I haven't been able to find a source satisfying all of the wiki policies yet, doesn't mean its false. Also I don't think WP:CASTEID is a basic policy of Wiki. its a policy brought out after quite a bit of debate and finally consensus.

Computeracct (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You cannot add a source which states that Raina is a Kashmiri Pandit without self-verification, as it would be a BLP violation. You cannot add his opinion to the article on Kashmir Files because the article you cited does not term his views to be coming from a "Kashmiri Pandit". You cannot synthesize his alleged Kashmiri Pandit identity with his tweet promoting this film to make claims that Kashmiri Pandits have rated it positively, and similarly, you cannot cite op-eds from non experts who say that this film depicted reality contrary to scholarly consensus that it was a propaganda film. Given your continued WP:IDHT, I agree with the proposed indef block on you now. Orientls (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The self-identification is in terms of 3rd person narration from what Raina said on a TV. It wasn't clear whether it requires a direct quote.

You gave the the reason that one needs a direct quote one time. That does not constitute WP: IDHT.

Don't worry, I am not going to edit the page about Suresh Raina view without discussion in the talk page.

The one from News18 was headlined as a review. Since the admin decided it was not and called it a op-ed, I respected his decision and moved on.

Can I ask you that instead of actually discussing topics why you are intent on focusing stuff that has already been addressed/accepted? Computeracct (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The evasive responses from C. above reads like WP:NOTHERE territory...

It's quite telling when someone spends quite some text defending themselves and strawmanning the OP (by cherrypicking, imo, minor points that doesn't even matter to the main criticism), without actually addressing the central criticism. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 08:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• Note block: Computeracct has been indefinitely blocked for COI/promo editing. The block was based on private evidence. It's not necessarily true that this section should be closed, since the community might find that the conduct described above merits a separate sanction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

User indulging in lies, distortions, personal attacks against me

Section merged. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

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

---

User @EarthDude has been indulging in malicious lies and personal attacks against me.

See above:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User aggressively engaging in disruptive editing, edit warring, and misrepresenting sources

"Computeracct had been already told to stop calling reliable sources unreliable, [196] "

The Scroll is not under reliable sources in WP: ICTF and WP: RSP. so me saying it is not in reliable sources was correct.

So EarthDude is lying over here.

2. "Computeracct went back to edit warring on The Kashmir Files by restoring their edit. The user made no changes to their version of the edit, which continue with all the same problems as stated above. Contrary to the instructions provided to the user here, no discussion on the content was initiated."

This is again a lie. The problem was with changing the summary from mixed to positive, not about adding the content of Suresh Raina view (cricketer and Kashmiri Pandit. I did not change anything related to the summary again) I also added a reliable source for Suresh Raina being a Kashmiri Pandit. So EarthDude stating that I did not change anything or edit warred again here is simply false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computeracct (talk • contribs) 08:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

3. "As a WP:1AM, Computeracct is flooding the talk page of Talk:The Bengal Files, and cherrypicking reviews from pro-Indian government outlets (see Godi media) in order to show why the criticism against the movie must get no weight.[203][204] "

bringing in his own bias and politics.

I showed reviews from sources which are WP: ICTF reliable and or WP: RSP reliable

I never said criticism against the movie must gain no weight. I said both sides have reliable parts. So yet another lie from him.

"Therefore I propose we write it this way:

Some critics say it shows the truth/history correctly, while some have said it distorts history.

This satisfies WP: NPOV and WP: Balance and information is from reliable sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view

with these above sources cited for each."

Talk:The Bengal Files#Whether the movie distorts history or not

4. "This latest edit by Computeracct should be considered the last straw. The user is cherrypicking the reviews from pro-Indian government outlets to whitewash this globally recognised hateful Islamophobic propaganda film. While the article on the film covers in extensive details how reliable scholarship and reputed sources have called it propaganda and a distortion of facts for Hindu nationalist and Islamophobic political purposes (See The_Kashmir_Files#Political_messaging_and_historical_accuracy), the user claims the movie is telling "true incidents that happened in Kashmir and is not a propaganda film", and it is "the truth, is authentic, shows true incidents etc." This is a significant violation of WP:HOAX. As seen above, this has only further cemented the fact that the user is solely and exclusively editing on Wikipedia for the purposes of WP:SOAP and WP:RGW."

again goes to show his relentless bias.

I put reviews from WP:ICTF and WP: RSP reliable sources.

His claim that this is WP: HOAX, WP: SOAP and WP: RGW are based on nothing but innuendo and lies.

Same thing for that I am solely exclusively here for that. I have made contributions to many movie related pages (not just these 2 movies), many cricketer related pages, some tennis related pages.

5. About this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bengal_Files&diff=prev&oldid=1311106214:

See here, I had twice shown 3 reliable sources (2 WP: ICTF + Subhash K. Jha who has written and is writing for WP: RSP reliable source(s))

User ZDRX said for the 2nd time that these are fringe sources. Which is why I correctly said it was a case of WP: IDHT.

Please see the full convo here

Talk:The Bengal Files#Whether the movie distorts history or not

So EarthDude is lying here again. Also note that ZDRX did not respond there after I pointed out that he was indulging in WP: IDHT.

6. He also complained to an admin over here including lies/distortions about me User talk:Firefangledfeathers#Computeracct

I exposed his lies and the admin did not take any action against me.

So given his numerous lies, distortions and personal attacks against me, I request you to take action against him including banning him from the 2 pages and maybe a temp ban Computeracct (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I can reply to this one now ->

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User aggressively engaging in disruptive editing, edit warring, and misrepresenting sources Computeracct (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• (1) Literally no-one is going to read this (WP:TLDR). (2) If this source which I had to remove from The Kashmir Files, which was not a film review but a political opinion piece which runs counter to the consensus version of the actual facts, is the type of material you are including, then I strongly suspect that there may be a problem here, though perhaps not the one you are describing. Black Kite (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  1 I will shorten it.

  2. The heading reads: The Kashmir Files Review: Vivek Agnihotri's Film Reveals Harsh Truths, Asks Uncomfortable Questions. https://www.news18.com/news/movies/the-kashmir-files-review-vivek-agnihotris-film-makes-you-face-harsh-truths-and-ask-uncomfortable-questions-4871561.html

  3 Please google: kashmir files movie review news 18

  and you get 2 results having the word review in the heading This is the 2nd one

  https://www.news18.com/news/movies/the-kashmir-files-review-vivek-agnihotris-film-makes-you-face-harsh-truths-and-ask-uncomfortable-questions-4871561.html Computeracct (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Please learn how to shorten your links and shorten your revid links. Northern Moonlight 17:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Computeracct (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, we know what the link is, because that's the one I removed. As I've just said, that's not a film review (as the author actually admits), it's a political opinion piece/rant about how they believe the version of events portrayed in the film is equivalent to reality, which general scholarly consensus says is not true. We can't use that. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, and WP:CANVASSING others to form a "consensus" on an article [38] [39] [40] is really not a good idea, and may get you blocked. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  I removed "fix the article", only asked to comment to get consensus. So that should be ok as per WP:CANVASSING right? or is it necessary to remove all of them? Computeracct (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your view on that article, but I respect your decision. Computeracct (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk

• Killing of Charlie Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Миша Карелин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today M.Karelin used acornyms to name the accused (seemingly) in order to bypass Special:AbuseFilter/1382 violation several times. As the RFC to name the accused wzs still ongoing and had yet to be concluded it was still not allowed to name the accused anywhere at the time of the edit

[41]

Worth noting that earlier Very Polite Person left a comment suggesting that who who bypass the filter (at the time it was in effect) presumably would be blocked --Trade (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

His username is User:Миша_Карелин. I have left the ANI notice on the user talk page for you. Northern Moonlight 17:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry! Names got me confused! Trade (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Block everyone who tries to bypass Wiki censorship, but also try to ready Wikipedia:Five pillars, I think some people forgot the main reason of this project !! Alas. M.Karelin (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

M.Karelin, while accuracy is important, we take WP:BLP very seriously, and for someone not convicted of a crime, we err on the side of caution (note that I am in favor of naming the arrested guy). This was extremely WP:POINTy and while I don't personally feel any sanction would be justified if you acknowledge this and pledge to do better, this kind of aggressively making the point and trying to "hide" an edit so that it isn't caught is disruptive editing. This is a sensitive area, and these types of games make things worse. Being right isn't justification for acting like this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

He is not charged, but he is under custody. We could simply mention this (referring to the Gov sources), and that would be appropriate. But some people with power here decided to go in a very absurd way, they just forgot the meaning of this project - Wikipedia:Five pillars. This is very sad, wiki is turning into Twitter. M.Karelin (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

So the meaning of the project is to ignore the RfC (that you participated in), which is a critical part of dispute resolution, and proceed ahead with including his initials before that RfC was included, even though the edit filter stopped you three times from including his name? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

There are still rampant BLP violations there and ArbCom has been mentioned by senior admins. We still need maximum eyes on the entire set of pages. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Read my comment bellow. Censorship in Wiki is something horrible now. M.Karelin (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Nobody was censoring anything. There was a then-ongoing RfC working to achieve consensus about whether to include the name or not. Do you think it was somehow appropriate to ignore that RfC and include his initials anyway? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

What is ArbCom gonna do about Kirk's shooting? Trade (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Barring presentation of other misbehavior, I don't know that we should do anything here as the RfC was closed in favor of name inclusion. At this point, applying some sort of sanction is very much after the fact. @Миша Карелин: Did you not think the edit filter stopping you from including the name three different times ([42][43][44], for curious admins) was a warning sign not to do this? Come on. Bad form for attempting the work around, and please don't attempt that ever again. WP:BLP is a serious policy with serious implications for the project. Attempting to skirt around walls put in place to prevent behavior is not the way to handle things. Consider yourself admonished for this behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Not mentioning his name in the Article, when the entire world knows his name already - this not only violation of Wiki rules, but the violation of Wikipedia:Five pillars. You forgot the meaning of WIki. And you blaming me ?? Shame on you. Now you can execute me . M.Karelin (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see how not mentioning his name in the article, when there was a then-ongoing RfC about the issue, is somehow a violation of WP:5P. Could you please explain that? Three times the edit filter stopped you from adding the name. Yet, you decided to try to work around the edit filter by including his initials? Could you please explain how you thought this was a good idea and how now that you've been admonished for it, you think you've done no wrong? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

That was very stupid RfC, violating Five pillars and the meaning of this project. When someone is arrested, you can mention his name referring to the Gov resources. That wont violate any wiki rule or any law. You are acting like dictators here. M.Karelin (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

So you disagreed with the RfC, and unilaterally decided what was best for the project? Is that how this project works? Ignore the RfC (that you participated in) and just go ahead and do it anyway? Also, calling us dictators is a direct violation of WP:NPA. I strongly encourage you not to violate WP:NPA again. Comment on content, not contributors. I'll place a warning on your talk page so there's no question that you've been properly warned. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

When someone is arrested, you can mention his name referring to the Gov resources.

Government sources are never inherently trustworthy or RS simply by being government sources. For example, we would not trust implausible statements about Donald Trump from the White House anymore than a reasonable and sane fellow would trust impausible statements about the Russian invasion of Ukraine from the the Kremlin or the persecution of Uyghurs in China from the Zhongnanhai. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I meant FBI sources. What are you talking about ? What Ukraine ? M.Karelin (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The FBI (or other national equivalent in other states) do not get an automatic presumption of being WP:RS. Every statement by anyone in any source is always subject to equal scrutiny. Being "government" grants zero clout here. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not stupid! It's vitally important, and the potentially ruined lives of innocents are at stake! There is no factoid so important it cannot wait for charges to be filed. We cannot yield from this stand, nor should we. jp×g🗯️ 08:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

He is not yet charged, but the info is added. Including some info about his personal life. As of ruining someone's life, his name was circulating in every single mass media source (some even included his mugshot), let alone every social media web site (they all quoted FBI and Utah Governor of course). I don't think we would have ruined his life simply mentioning about his arrest. And that would not violate BLP. I understand, that in sensitive situations like this we should be careful, but I think that RfC was too much restrictive, and probably that's why it is gone now (even before his charges). M.Karelin (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Do note that aside from the name bypass, the very thread itself was a BLPVIO as well, trying to add claims about the WP:NPF alleged partner referencing two GUNREL/deprecated sources for it.

They also bypassed the deprecation filter trying to link to something from WP:THESUN and linking to the papers YouTube page instead, which isn’t captured in the deprecation filter. Raladic (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I think there's a combination of a several factors here including a very literal use of English (which appears to be a second language that they're less than fluent in leading to communication issues) and WP:RGW tendencies around insisting certain information must be included despite a lack of quality, reliable sources. The fact they decided to just try and breach the edit filter and the endless insistence here that everyone else is wrong gives WP:IDHT too. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Concur. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Ohh, yeah, btw Utah Governor Spencer Cox just confirmed it (BLP violation removed). He was interrogated by the FBI, but was not involve in the crime. Wanna see his statement ? But of course we should not include this in Wiki because CNN, MSNBC and other reliable sources did not mention it yet. OMG, what this project has become ? M.Karelin (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to slow down before you end up getting into risky waters. Just slow down. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

we should not include this in Wiki because CNN, MSNBC and other reliable sources did not mention it yet. OMG, what this project has become ?

If you're struggling to understand the core requirement of information requiring reliable sources per WP:RS that is a significant problem. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

OK. FBI is not a reliable sources to at least mention any info about his arrest (and his name). FBI is not a reliable sources to mention any info about (BLP violation removed) (agents spoke about this with some journalist ). Utah Governor Spencer Cox is not a reliable sources (he made an official statement about this too). Then who is reliable sources ?? Plz explain it to me. M.Karelin (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

When referring to a criminal case, a statement by an official this early on is not always necessarily a well-tested and veritable claim. They shouldn't be commenting on unverified details anyway, as they can harm the case. Also, the current FBI hasn't quite been following standard procedure in a number of areas recently, and this case has put this on display. We prefer secondary sources about facts, and I don't mean a newspaper quoting a politician or FBI director's speculation. WP:BLP needs to be respected, even for an alleged murderer. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is WP:SEALION to me now. Multiple people have tried to explain the need for reliable sources to you, multiple people have shared the policy with you (even after you have already expressed knowledge of our policies) and instead now it's "just asking questions" territory.

Given this person's behaviour I'd say a TBAN from CTOPs should be considered because even under Assume Good Faith they clearly don't show the capability to edit in a way that doesn't cause issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Was going to say this then got distracted. What Hammersoft said made a lot of sense at the time but M.Karelin seems to be really trying to talk themselves into a block for some combination of DE (based on I don't hear that)/NOTHERE/BLPVIO. And I was saying this before some of the latest posts. But personally I'm still fine with someone closing this thread before that happens. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I've been following events on that talk page closely, and between that and his comments here, enough is enough. He has shown for his entire editing career that he simply cannot understand the system of reliable sources, not just regarding Kirk (Here's an example from last year where he used the Daily Mail while complaining about NBC). He has also shown time and time again in this very thread that he refuses to get the point despite several attempts at explanation, and has intentionally bypassed edit filters on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, I think an indef is necessary to prevent further disruption. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Leaning into a potential WP:CBAN discussion, could you provide some diffs of bypassing edit filters at other times? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

There's the one that started this thread obviously, but in the same discussion, he made this comment bypassing the filter preventing usage of The Sun by linking to their YouTube channel instead. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• I already pointed out the sun deprecation filter bypass above (user linked to YouTube instead since WP:THESUN's domains are all blocked).
• There was two cases in 2020: Edit filter log - Wikipedia Edit filter log - Wikipedia (tried twice adding the same content, so similar to this time, arguably that was a while back).
• But this one from last year supports the notion that there is a pattern of bad understanding of CTOP requirements - Edit filter log - Wikipedia, which looked like the editor tried to add similarly contentious content based on deprecated source to an election article and arguing with no less than two admins at the time, rather similar to this incidence here. Pinging @Acroterion and @Muboshgu if they have any memory of it.

Raladic (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I vaguely remember this, but as the edit history there shows that I didn't follow up, I must have been distracted by something else or just didn't pay this user any more mind than other disruptive users I encounter. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Like Muboshgu I remember this, but only as part of the general background of election-related POV pushing by IPs and users. The only thing that stood out to me was the absence of clue from someone who had been around as long as M.Karelin has been here. Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Propose topic ban from CTOPs for M.Karelin3

It just doesn't end. WP:IDHT O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN The unending refusal to get the point, on one of our most basic content rules (WP:RS), and the intentional circumvention of edit filters make me think he is unfit to edit Wikipedia at all. The sourcing issue would likely persist in other topic areas as well. Support a topic ban if there isn't strong enough consensus for a CBAN. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from CTOPs as said above, but would also support CBAN if there's consensus going that way. Editor keeps failing to understand basic policy around Reliable Sources and why their edits aren't acceptable so at this point is either obstinately refusing to get the hint so is WP:IDHT or is just incapable of understanding and is a WP:CIR issue. Either way, too many hours are being wasted on this. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN for CTOPs, seems to be a pattern of trying to introduce content with poor sourcing and arguing with editors, while repeating WP:BLPTALK violations while doing so (even in this very ANI thread, see redactions above). I could see an admin could also decide to issue an Arbitration Enforcement TBAN fot CTOPs prior to this CBAN discussion concluding - though in that case, they'd have to specify the topics I think per WP:STANDARDSET, so I guess in this case the most relevant would be WP:AMPOL, WP:BLP and WP:GENSEX. Actually scrolling through their edit history shows that there have been even more discussions (and another ANI thread) between now and 2018 with similar trying to introduce non-RS into articles and ensuing long discussions with countless editors. Might actually reach WP:NOTHERE level at this point. Raladic (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from CTOPs in general, or AMPOL specifically several editors have tried to talk this editor into an off-ramp, but this editor clearly wants to have their battle. Our contentious areas can use fewer WP:POINTy editors. Neutral on CBAN as I think there's a reasonable chance this editor will be less of a problem for the project on topics in which the stakes are lower. But at the same time, I'm not so confident in that stance that I would hinder a consensus for a WP:TBAN CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN - Same reasoning, but with this editor quadrupling and quintupling down on their behavior, I have a great deal less confidence that a topic ban will be effective. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN The above, and my interaction with this user in Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk#Discussion about the 'Background' section (note that the section heading was originally Lets be honest (or at least try)) reeks of WP:ABF, WP:IDHT, and WP:CIR issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: Judging from the user page blanking it looks like he's taking a voluntary Wiki break --Trade (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  A lot of editors say that when sanction talks come up. Best to ignore it and decide what we need to do since being generous plenty change their minds quickly. Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, oldest trick in the book. Claim you're "considering retiring" or "taking a break" and just wait till people move on to the next issue and then continue the same old behaviour. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Never mind that break or no, there is -- so far -- unanimous support for the premise that at the very least, M.Karelin3 cannot be trusted to edit in sensitive areas of the encyclopedia, period. Can't imagine why they'd be suddenly trustworthy again for no other reason than that they took a week/month off. Ravenswing 12:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN They bypassed the filter and have continued to refuse to get the point about not doing that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN from all CTOPs as an entirely unworkable sanction. If a narrower TBAN is not enough, then CBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN – As my proposed CTOP TBAN appears unworkable, I think CBAN is the correct action. As the editor has been given several opportunities in this discussion without any sign that they recognize the problem or are willing to correct their behavior, I doubt an AMPOL TBAN would suffice. Seems everything is political these days and the current level of disruption is a serious time sink. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - Per QuicoleJR and WP:IDHT. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 21:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment: 1) This Users insisted, that if someone is officially arrested, we can mention that in the article, referring to the Gov resources, and that would not violate WP:BLP at all. Somehow, some Users disagree with that, saying that we should wait till he is officially charged. 2) This user also said, that some important details about the case can be mentioned in the article, if we refer to the Gov sources (like FBI and Utah Governor), and again, that would not violate WP:BLP. But again, "the community" opposed it. So he deserves execution !! Since we are going to ban him, we also should pay attention to this section in the article, because all the info M.Karelin was talking about, is included in that section (Reminder: this Robinson guy is not charged yet officially). So the section itself violates WP:BLP, right ?? Thus, 1) we should apply sanctions against M.Karelin, because he simply discussed about this on the Talk page, violating WP:BLP, and; 2) we should not apply sanctions against those Editors who actually included the info in article already, including info about his "partner" (reminder: Robinson is not charged yet). This will be a very fair and balanced decision. Thanks. M.Karelin (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Why exactly have you left this very long comment talking about yourself in third-person in this section? Is this just further evidence of issues communicating using the English language, or did you think you had logged out/using a sockpuppet account and therefore were attempting to present yourself as someone else speaking up in your defence? Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I wonder if CU would be justified given this Trade (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I wonder when we gonna appeal some sanctions against those Editors, who wrote a big section about the arrestee, who is not charged yet (it is a violation of WP:BLP, is not it?). Since he is not charged yet, we have a heinous violation of that Rule. Lest see who gonna be blocked for that edits (besides me of course, although I did not edit the article). M.Karelin (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Trade that’s my thought too if I’m honest. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Some people call it sarcasm....The whole meaning of the comment is this - is the community going to appeal some sanctions against people, who wrote that big Section about arrested person, who is not charged yet (reminder - he is not charged yet) ?? Yes or no ?? And I can see some info about his private life there (see the section). If I was so wrong, why we have that section with such details? Do you remember the only reason of the filters (?) - WP:BLP will be violated if we mention his name before he is charged. Well, he is not charged yet, but the info is there in the article. I just wanna see some sanction against those Editors, otherwise that would look like double standards. M.Karelin (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  The issue is that they waited until the RFC decided it was okay. The difference here isn't the charges, it's the fact that the RFC closed with consensus to include. If you had simply waited for that RFC to conclude, you wouldn't be in this situation. Also, please recognize that intentionally bypassing edit filters is unacceptable and you should not do it again under any circumstances. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Here is why. I never seen such a thing like filter before. I did not even know that in Wiki this kind of restriction exist. I thought writing full name is the only thing that is forbidden. But there is one other aspect I am sure about - that restriction was a huge mistake, whoever decided to do it. And the reasoning was - 'Lets wait till he is charged'. Why ? If someone is officially arrested, we can mention it here, and it does not violate WP:BLP at all. If it does, plz give me the quote from the rule. All of a sudden, before his official charges, now RFC decided that we can include the info. What has changed since then ? This is what really confusing. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it - WP:IGNORE. Well, I guess bureaucracy is now more important in Wiki, than anything else.... M.Karelin (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  "What has changed since then ?" The request for comment concluded. That is what changed Trade (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  You are not yet sanctioned. But you should read WP:NOTTHEM as you are not helping your case here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Executing you seems to be a step too far i feel Trade (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for your kind words. M.Karelin (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Seriously tho why cant you just apologize and promise that you wont try and bypass the edit filters again? Trade (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well, I did not even know how the filter works. I thought that it is only forbidden to mention full name, and other way we can discus him. I did not even know that there is total ban even for discussing him without mentioning his full name. But now I do realize what is the reason of all of this, this is not about filter "bypassing".... M.Karelin (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  I discussed him perfectly fine without naming him. Trade (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  I also tried to do it - discuss him without his full name (after I realized that filter exist). So what is my violation then? Because I mentioned his initials ? Well, if that is my violation, I am sorry, because I did not know that even initials should not be mentioned. As of why the filter worked 3 times, here is the explanation - in the one big edit his full name was mention 3 times, and every time when I was try to submit, the filter worked (I mistakenly corrected it one by one). The filter worked for one single edit, but 3 times. M.Karelin (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe do as the filter says instead of trying to find ways around it Trade (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  You seemed to have missed the point entirely (and this patterns is why a block seems all but certain). As far as I can tell, nobody is discussing sanctioning you for adding this material; several people here, including myself, support the inclusion of this material. They're discussing sanctioning you for repeatedly adding this material in a tedentious manner, intentionally bypassing content restrictions, and then continuing to act in a disruptive manner about it. If you had showed just an ounce of humility, or a shred of willingness to understand what the problem is and trying to improve, you wouldn't be on the cusp of a topic or a community ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Support CBAN on the grounds of sealioning. King Lobclaw (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN On the basis of circumventing consensus and sealioning. Not yet convinced on CBAN. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN and would not object to a CBAN. This is beyond ridiculous now. They participated in the then-ongoing RfC, decided it was stupid and unilaterally decided what was best for the project. Then, when confronted with an edit filter that was stopping them, they circumvented the edit filter and now claim they were confused. WP:AGF is broken at this point. Further, the blame-everyone-else-to-prove-i'm-not-wrong approach is getting tiresome. Maybe other people need to be sanctioned. But, whether other people need to be sanctioned or not is irrelevant to the point at hand. This is not, never was, and never will be a situation where we have to sanction everyone involved in order to sanction just one person who was involved. Enough. Failing some recognition of their appalling behavior, support TBAN. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Strongwranglers disruptive editing to make a point

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

User:Strongwranglers questioned whether Fargo (1996 film) is in fact a black comedy as had been stated in the article's first sentence. First they raised the question on the talk page, but a few minutes later, without feedback, deleted any reference or categorization involving comedies, black or otherwise, in the article. I restored the article and began responding in the talk page discussion.

Strongwranglers made it clear (Talk:Fargo#Is Fargo actually a black comedy?) that reliable sources calling the film a "black comedy" are stupid and that Wikipedia is "janky" for listening to them. Having now had it explained by a couple of us that reliable sources and not editor opinion are precisely what Wikipedia goes by, Strongwranglers got WP:POINTY. They pulled up a review of the film that refers to the directors' vision (not the film) as "antihumanist" and proceeded to rewrite the opening words as "Fargo is a 1996 antihumanist black comedy crime film", citing the source. I reverted it with the edit summary "Not a film genre, and just an adjective pulled out of one critic's review". Despite my subsequently leaving a disruptive editing warning (the third or fourth one the user has received overall) and a 3RR warning, we're now up to three back-and-forths and user has added the adjective a fourth time. I decided to come here over the pointy-ness rather than to the edit warrning noticeboard but I could have gone either way, I suppose. Largoplazo (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The edit was sourced.

It is a film genre. Sources:

https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/scholarlywork/1272000-anti-humanist-film--greed-and-source-code

https://www.tasteofcinema.com/2018/the-10-best-movies-about-dehumanization/

https://academic.oup.com/screen/article-abstract/58/1/1/3101327?login=false

I created a talk page topic and let Largoplazo (talk · contribs) know about it on his page, but he doesn't like talking apparently.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it use the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fargo_(1996_film)#Fargo_is_an_Antihumanist_film Strongwranglers (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You've demonstrated a tendency to overlook any part of an argument that you don't have a response to. The source does not characterize the film as an antihumanist film. The sources you just introduced here also only discuss antihumanist themes in films. As for the edit you made to The Wire, also to make a WP:POINT, I see that someone else reverted that. I forgot to mention that edit of yours in my initial complaint above. Largoplazo (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we're... discussing the change on the ... talk page.

The horror.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Antihumanist is a film genre, I provided sources and it's sourced in the review as well.

Could you perhaps describe in no uncertain terms what you specifically find objectionable? Strongwranglers (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to how this report is about your WP:POINTY behavior, including that demonstrated by having made those edits in the first place and having reverted my first reversion in disregard to what I'd written in the edit summary. It's part of a general pattern of taunting that's revealing itself, the pointy-ness being part of it. Your behavior is unsuitable here. Largoplazo (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

16:09 I made the talk page topic.

16:12 You revert a sourced edit and ignore the talk page.

16:14 I let you know about its existence on your personal talk page.

16:20 You revert the sourced edit again after I have alerted you that the talk page discussion is open.

16:33 You open a WP:ANI topic, again, not using the article's talk page.

Why one would ignore the effort I made to discuss with you in favor of opening a WP:ANI topic is beyond me. Again, everything I said was sourced and I am quite happy to discuss with other editors my reasoning.

It seems like you want to avoid discussing the change and would rather surmise as to the psychology behind it. Not sure that applies here.

It's also... one word. (yes this is really all over 1 word being included)

Which is sourced. Strongwranglers (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, it isn't sourced. You cited a source that doesn't state what you claim it does. So you might as well have cited a cake recipe. And, once more, you're taking space here to talk about stuff other than what this report is about. Largoplazo (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Well you're making a lot of accusations but all of the facts show that you wanted to discuss here as opposed to the article's talk page.

https://chicagoreader.com/film-tv/fargo/

"Though the Coens combine their usual derisive amusement toward their characters with a certain affection and condescending appreciation for some of the local yokels (in particular a pregnant police chief played by Frances McDormand), their well-honed antihumanist vision remains as bleak as ever"

It very clearly states the film is antihumanist.

You claim that isn't a film genre, to which I provided sources that it is.

ALL of this discussion could have been had on the talk page.

Personally I think this is a case of WP:HOTHEAD and WP:BOOMERANG. But that isn't for me to decide.

It would have been far more ideal for you to engage in a manner consistent with WP:CIVIL.

My last thought on this: WP:VOLUNTEER. Strongwranglers (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, you're synthesizing a genre using original research. Anti-humanism is a theme, not an encyclopedia-defined genre. Augmented Seventh (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, ok.

I think the talk topic can be closed if that's the case.

Thanks! Strongwranglers (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not diving into the content dispute, but what stopped you from discussing this on the article's talk page? I'm curious. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I began participating in the discussion immediately after my first reversion of their removal of content, what do you mean? Largoplazo (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why you didn't keep it in article talk. I don't think you assumed good faith with this editor, because if you had, you would have tried to respect their position and explain why you believed their position was incorrect. Even if they were incorrect, they were civil in the discussion. Bringing it here was premature, in my opinion. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Strongwranglers is now demonstrating the same disruptive behavior at The Wire and Talk:The Wire#The Wire is a comedy. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the editor deserves a break since they are a newer editor on Wikipedia here and still familiarizing themselves with the policies and guidelines. We managed to reach a common understanding about The Wire. I am inclined to believe that the editor will have a better approach now. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The editor isn't behaving as someone who's trying to learn but as someone who's out to defy attempts by experienced editors to explain things to them. Largoplazo (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd still assume good faith. They were probably not even familiar with the manual of styles before. I gave them an advice and I think they'll heed it. I do not think any sanction is needed except perhaps a warning. If the disruptive editing were to continue, I'd definitely advise a sanction, but that does not appear to be the case now. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate you doing that. I didn't feel I was having any effect, warnings were being disregarded, this wasn't the user's first dispute that had led to warnings, and in my estimation I had run into a case of refusal to listen. So it was worth getting outside input. If that was an OK thing for me to do but this is the wrong venue, let me know, but note that I never said I was looking for sanctions. Just help. Largoplazo (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

"this wasn't the user's first dispute that had led to warnings"

Well now we're just making things up. That's disappointing to see. Strongwranglers (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with User:Largoplazo on this one. I'm not sure what measure is to be taken regarding User:Strongwranglers but they are "Treating editing as a battleground" per WP:NOTHERE, and they really are one of the most uncivil editors in my experience. Kvinnen (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Why not just say "I don't like this guy"? It's more straightforward than trying to claim things which are contradictory to reality. Strongwranglers (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem is: one too many people have said this about your editing habits in the short time you have been here. Kvinnen (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Kvinnen (talk · contribs), I take WP:BEBOLD to heart, as one of the 5 funding principles of Wikipedia. This has caused some editors to take offense and indeed, they have complained because of it. However, complaints are not condemnations. Nor have they been accurate, in every case thus far.

If your idea of WP:CIVIL is that everyone must agree with your view, I sadly beg to differ. If that upsets you, that isn't in fact, my problem. Nor is it a general problem. Being upset is your choice, and I can't decide how you should feel about something.

Sticking to the facts: You have made more comments on this WP:ANI than you did on any talk page discussion.

I strongly disagree with your characterization of any interactions on my part when you couldn't be bothered to engage when I extended the olive branch. Strongwranglers (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You have been sufficiently addressed on my TP Kvinnen (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Glad to hear that for someone who previously said

"No point adding citations here when you have not added them in the page. I no longer wish to engage with you, you may do whatever you want."

That you've managed to become such a big fan of me. Strongwranglers (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Addressing SW's comments. for everyone's ref. Kvinnen (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Specifically this one:

"You managed to respond to an edit on Hamburger but there are topics open on the talk page there for YEARS now that NO ONE has responded to."

Again, you have made more replies to this WP:ANI than to the discussion that you were requested to reply to. How can an editor WP:BEBOLD if you don't reply to any talk topics and instead just engage in an edit war, then proceed to send "warnings" (not official, just your opinion) to me instead of... using the talk page. WP:BOOMERANG... because I've tried my best to communicate with you and your response is always to complain or send a warning, etc. Strongwranglers (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, it is quite a day-ruining experience to interact with you at all. I did not want to have to deal with your hostility back then, therefore, I stopped engaging, but seeing you here again on ANI compelled me to chime in. Cheers. Kvinnen (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

"I stopped engaging, but seeing you here again on ANI compelled me to chime in. " WP:TEND, in other words. None of which explains how you make more posts here as opposed to on the talk page, where again, you were requested to participate but declined. How does this WP:AGF? Strongwranglers (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Ignoring for a minute that edit-warring over film genres is famously deep into WP:LAME territory... dismissing the majority of sources as "stupid" and then unilaterally declaring victory in a discussion involving only two people is disruptive. If an edit is challenged and a third opinion is missing, go get one and stick with the status quo until then. Strongwranglers, knock it off with trying to force your interpretation into the article absent a consensus. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Hi Elmidae (talk · contribs), I think because Fargo seems to have contention around making edits I will simply avoid the article. Hope that seems reasonable. Strongwranglers (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I would like to chime in about Strongwranglers here. They had made many unconstructive edits to the page Hamburger, some were uncited and others were cases of WP:CIRCULAR , despite my multiple warnings (as part of vandalism reverting, they persisted to make disruptive, unconstructive edits and began to spam my talk page like it was their personal diary (adding, deleting messages as they saw fit). Despite all of their caustic messages, one can see that I went through each edit of theirs on the Hamburger page and explained to them what was problematic. User:Strongwranglers is extremely acrimonious in their manner of communication, which eventually led me to back out of the Hamburger page. I had even started a Teahouse section asking for guidance as to how to deal with an editor as acerbic as they are and intentionally did not ping them out of an attempt to not prolong their hostility towards me. Their actions warrant some serious consideration for strict measures. As far as I can recall, they seem to have a problem with at least one other editor notwithstanding me and User: Largoplazo.

Some problematic incidents from Strongwranglers's editing habits  

1 2 3 Kvinnen (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Kvinnen (talk · contribs), you can simply remove the conversation from your talk page if you like. It's your talk page.

Further, I think any user would have consternation with how you acted in regards to some minor edits I made.

I created a talk page topic to discuss them which you never bothered to respond to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamburger#c-Strongwranglers-20250902080500-Variations#Other_meats

I had to make another talk page topic and link you directly to it in response.

Instead of engaging with the content of the article, you responded "No point adding citations here when you have not added them in the page. I no longer wish to engage with you, you may do whatever you want."; which appears not to be the case as you decided to jump into this discussion by looking through my talk page history. In fact, you managed to respond to this WP:ANI topic without responding to any of the other talk page topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamburger#c-Strongwranglers-20250908121400-Is_%22steakburger%22_actually_a_unique/other_meat_type_or_should_this_section_be_red — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongwranglers (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You at no point made an attempt to be courteous, civil, or extend an olive branch to me. Your intent was, naturally, to create a chilling effect on editing the article as opposed to discussing the changes directly.

Generally any user who gets ignored and then you attempt to chastise them after you have ignored their attempts to communicate isn't going to be fond of you. I believe you've confused my lack of fondness for you for a lack of civility, which isn't the case. This again is another example: you refuse to communicate through talk pages and would rather send warnings or engage in some sort of process that avoids merely... talking it out.

How anyone would be endeared to this behavior is beyond me. It is further beyond me that you think acting in such a manner is helpful to the editing process as opposed to simply creating consternation for others. Strongwranglers (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You have now been involved in various discussions regarding your behavior here, perhaps you should take a long hard look at your mirror and stop "strong wrangling" for once. Kvinnen (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If users want to ignore the talk page process (like you have) and then file notices, etc., that is their right.

Instead of treating every engagement with the idea you are winning or losing it, I would suggest taking a look at WP:HOTHEAD.

""If you're a dyed-in-the-wool curmudgeon like so many of us, the lighthearted advice at WP:HOTHEADS may be helpful to you.""

I find it's this specific approach to avoiding using the talk page trying to engage which has led to these kinds of lengthy threads, to which ultimately the same question comes up: Why was it more important for you to try to paint me in a bad light than it was for you to actually respond to any of my talk topics, etc.? Strongwranglers (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh the irony here.....Bit of a twist, isn't it? You're asking me to read something that seems more relevant to you. Kvinnen (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Let's keep to the facts as opposed to our personal feelings, that's what I am saying.

If this was done from the start I believe that you would have had a drastically different outcome. Strongwranglers (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

What you've written here is extremely deceptive. As I began this discussion by reporting, it all began (at least, as far as I was involved), when, yes, you opened a talk page discussion ... and then immediately did what you wanted anyway, and then redid it multiple times despite having been contested, rather than waiting to see what kind of consensus would come out of the discussion, and despite being told that waiting is what you were supposed to do. And then you went off an did the same thing with the antihumanist bit, and again at The Wire. Now you talk as though you've all along been the one doing it the right way. Largoplazo (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

And none of those changes were actually made to the article. It was discussed on the talk page and then closed.

WP:BEBOLD doesn't mean "wait all day to edit". Strongwranglers (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Another TP comment from User:Mathglot (September 17, 2025) echoing my sentiments about Strongwrangler's comments on Hamburger. Apologies for the fragmented presentation of evidence. Kvinnen (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It is in fact the only comment from him that I have received on my talk page aside from a welcome message, and I think it's misplaced. Civility is a two-way street.

I find it super weird you're stalking my talk page as well. WP:WITCHHUNT Strongwranglers (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

A witch hunt is an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred. Multiple editors have consistently found fault with your behavior in multiple articles and on multiple talk pages. It's obvious. Largoplazo (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

"Some editors may be concerned that another's activities may not conform to Wikipedia guidelines, and may become so obsessed with that possibility that they go to the extremes of studying the edit histories of others very deeply as if they were detectives conducting a homicide investigation. One who engages in this type of behavior misses the point as to what Wikipedia is really all about." Strongwranglers (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It is important to take ANI discussions seriously and not make baseless accusations. All I did was: link to my own TP consisting of your WP:BLUDGEONING, your current TP displaying User:Mathglot's polite warning and I did not even need to go to the next page of your TP history to find that other editors have had similar issues with your editing habits and general behavior here. I'm not going out of my way to WP:HUNT you or antagonize you. Kvinnen (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You're literally in WP:ANI you didn't file and you specifically said you went out of your way to comment on it.

You would have had to recently look at my talk page multiple times to make the comments you made.

"I'm not going out of my way to WP:HUNT you or antagonize you."

The facts are the opposite. Strongwranglers (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have been negatively affected by your behavior here. I was surprised to find you on ANI within days of your hostile comments with me. Therefore, I felt it would be appropriate and relevant to comment here as someone who has also been the subject of your discourtesy. ANI is an open forum after all, not restricted to thread initiators. Kvinnen (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:GLASSHOUSES Strongwranglers (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Huh? You made the initial set of changes, repeatedly, to the article. It was discussed on the talk page and then closed: You're not even making sense now. WP:BEBOLD means do it and, unless someone contests it, fine. It doesn't mean keep doing it over and over after it's been contested, and it doesn't mean pretend to be interested in feedback before doing something and then doing it before you've waited a decent amount of time (which can be days, not three minutes), for a response. See WP:BRD.

You're showing here that you have no interest in learning from anything anyone has by way of explanation for you, after having had multiple explanations from multiple other editors who have been here a long time and know how things work here. Instead, you keep fighting and fighting and fighting. Also, by way of your voluminous (if largely mistargeted) slinging of WP shortcuts, I'd think you've disqualified yourself from the sympathy of one or two others were showing you here on the theory that you're a newbie who knows nothing of Wikipedia ways. Largoplazo (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

None of those changes are still in the article. I don't get what the big deal is here.

And it's the fault of Wikipedia for making the WP pages very amusing to read. It's not a conspiracy to read wikipedia. WP:WITCHHUNT Strongwranglers (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If at this point you still don't understand that your behavior throughout is what the big deal is, and that if none of the changes are still in the respective articles it's because you've wasted a bunch of people's time dealing with your combative behavior and cleaning up after you, you aren't paying attention. Unsubscribing from this topic because this really is the last thing I have to say on this matter. Largoplazo (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The total amount of changes I made to Fargo (1996 film) was 1 word, not including the source I added.

I think this is a little dramatic of a response to a single word being added. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fargo_(1996_film)&diff=cur&oldid=1311535237Strongwranglers (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The pointy / hostile style of contributing and the tendency to escalate (as demonstrated by SW's failure to AGF and resolve the edit conflict in talk pages), the willingness to respond with wall-of-text frequently but almost never acknowledging the main criticism, and inclinations to use accusatory language against other editors (not AGF) appears to me as battleground behaviour and potentially WP:NOTHERE.

It's also notable that most of SW's responses in this thread boil down to Ad hominem - responding to criticism by accusing the accuser of misbehaviour, without actually addressing the criticisms - which is not a defence. The place to criticise another editor's behaviour is not in this thread.

Some examples of non-constructive, if not disingenuous engagements I've noticed in this AN/I thread -

> "I stopped engaging, but seeing you here again on ANI compelled me to chime in. " WP:TEND, in other words. None of which explains how you make more posts here as opposed to on the talk page, where again, you were requested to participate but declined. How does this WP:AGF? _{Ad Hominem without addressing the central criticism. Not a defence.}

> [You] have made more replies to this WP:ANI than to the discussion that you were requested to reply to. _*1 How can an editor WP:BEBOLD if you don't reply to any talk topics and instead just engage in an edit war, _*2 then proceed to send "warnings" (not official, just your opinion) _*3 to me instead of... using the talk page. _*4 WP:BOOMERANG... because I've tried my best to communicate with you_*5 and your response is always to complain or send a warning, etc. _{Too much to parse here, see below.}

> I take WP:BEBOLD to heart, as one of the 5 funding principles of Wikipedia. _{Defending disruptive editing by saying "BOLD is a principle of WP" is the equivalent of defending mishandling of firearms by citing the Second Amendment as part of the United States Constitution.}

*1: "[You] have made more replies to this [thread] than to the discussion you were requested to reply to."

- Ad hominem (you're at wrong) and non sequitur (noting this fact does not lead to anything. one may choose to reply to anything they wish - Kvinnen is not being discussed under an AN/I, only SW is.)

*2: "How can an editor [me] be bold if you [do these wrong things]?"

- Ad hominem again for accusing the accuser of editwarring. Not a defence, and this thread is not the right place.

- Strawmanning: "It's your fault that I can't be bold". The argument assumes the central criticism to be SW's inability to be Bold, but the criticism is exactly that SW is TOO BOLD. SW's tendency to boldly edit and defending their edits' correctness with hostility to the point of disrupting the encyclopedia project and its collaborative environment is the exactly the central criticism of this thread.

*3: "then proceed to send "warnings" (not official, just your opinion):

- It's interesting to see SW's tendency to cite WP policies with such proficiency while missing how warning messages work.

- Ad hominem yet again.

*4 *5: "[doing these wrong things] to me instead of [using] the talk page"

- Ad hominem yet again and might be accusation in a mirror. I'll copy-paste @StefenTower response here as he summarized this lame thread much better than I could ever have:

I don't understand why you didn't keep it in article talk. I don't think you assumed good faith with this editor, because if you had, you would have tried to respect their position and explain why you believed their position was incorrect. Even if they were incorrect, they were civil in the discussion. Bringing it here was premature, in my opinion. 19:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Which SW also did not respond to and continued to ad hominem-ing Kvinnen for a few days afterwards.

For that I propose that the WP:NOTHERE tag applies to SW; at the very least, SW's tendency to contribute with hostility and to escalate is incompatible with the collaborative nature of the Wikipedia project. If this pattern of behaviour persists, the encyclopedia is likely to receive more harm than benefit from SW's contributions. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 09:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Your use of Ad hominem is incorrect. You seem to be confused about its use: ad hominem is when you argue against the person's character, not merely their actions. Strongwranglers (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Nice try on focusing on the definition of Ad hominem. Sorry, I'm not taking the bait. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 09:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

"Nice try", this would be Begging the question.

You don't seem to understand logic but you DO seem to like to quote it. Strange. Strongwranglers (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:WITCHHUNT Strongwranglers (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Apart from agreeing with Elmidae's take that SW's (very plentiful) responses in this thread is approaching WP:LAME territory, I think SW's edits here demonstrated that the editor's more willing to engate in arguments than to actually improve any articles on Wikipedia, as demonstrated by the willingness to escalate content disputes beyond article talk pages. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 09:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Isn't accusing me of being WP:LAME an actual ad hominem?

Your use of logic is poor, demonstrably.

Very weird comment, again. Why have such a strange fetish for a topic you don't seemingly understand? Strongwranglers (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

"as demonstrated by the willingness to escalate content disputes beyond article talk pages"

Such as? Strongwranglers (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Your use of Straw man as a fallacy is also incorrect here.

This is a really weird comment. Lots of Argument from fallacy.

You may want to study Logic more before attempting to apply it. Strongwranglers (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

If you have any actual points to refute in my comment, go for it. Otherwise my comments are mainly intended to read by other editors. :)

Isn't accusing me of being WP:LAME an actual ad hominem?

> You seem to be confused about its use: ad hominem is when you argue against the person's character, not merely their actions.

Your use of logic is poor, demonstrably.

> Such as?

You don't seem to understand logic but you DO seem to like to quote it. Strange.

> ad hominem is when you argue against the person's character

Note that these are your own words. Now please address the criticism of you not being able to resolve edit disputes in article talk page. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 09:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

"as demonstrated by the willingness to escalate content disputes beyond article talk pages"

You don't provide any evidence of this claim. If you want to use Logic, typically, one would say, "and this claim is supported by X and Y", otherwise, to merely make claims without having justification is actually ad hominem in the classical sense.

" Now please address the criticism of you not being able to resolve edit disputes in article talk page."

And this is Moving the goalposts.

You seem to be confused as to how to apply fallacies in terms of argumentation. I find this to be a common thread here... Strongwranglers (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I do applaud the formatting used here, it's quite elaborate and overall stylish.

However, the logic itself is... well... lacking.

WP:GLASSHOUSES. Strongwranglers (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Being this familiar with Wikipedia's policies you might know WP:NPA prevents you from implying other editors for "logic [...] well... lacking" and "may want to study Logic more before attempting to apply it."

I'll be sending you a lv.2 warning for NPA. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 09:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Well your logic is simply incorrect, that's not an attack on you, which would be ad hominem, but rather a direct criticism of the logic or argumentation itself, which, again, since it is not ad hominem, it is not a personal attack.

It is okay to be misguided. I don't see why you need to be acerbic to me in response to being told so in a very calm and straightforward manner.

Perhaps you have some reason to be upset. I can't fathom what that is. But your logic, your argumentation itself, is not sound.

If that offends you, I am sorry, but it's not a "personal attack". Even if you characterize it as such... it still is not so.

Again, I find this to be a common thread here. Strongwranglers (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

So to sum it all up, SW says:

1) This is not Ad hominem works therefore this is not a valid criticism.

2) Because of this, your logic is just wrong. Because your logic is wrong, your criticism is null.

3) Because your criticism is null, I don't need to respond to the Elmidae's critique, which you brought up by moving the goal post. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 09:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

This is actually the Straw man fallacy. I never said any of this and you are making a Straw man to claim that I did say it.

This is a direct example of why I think your logic is not sound. You misuse fallacies while engaging in fallacious argumentation yourself. Strongwranglers (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

You also seemingly incorrectly quoted StefenTower (talk · contribs), who is saying that bringing the issue to WP:ANI was premature, in my defense. Which you seem to think is an accusation against me.

Again, not a personal criticism but if we are sticking to the facts and Logic... you are not applying the facts correctly. Strongwranglers (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, by your own logic, you seemed illogical.

Isn't accusing me of being WP:LAME an actual ad hominem?

> You seem to be confused about its use: ad hominem is when you argue against the person's character, not merely their actions.

You don't seem to understand logic but you DO seem to like to quote it. Strange.

> ad hominem is when you argue against the person's character

You're refuting yourself.

Walking my pet, brb. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 09:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Just so you may type:

"I'm misquoting you, and that's a fallacy". 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 09:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

"You don't seem to understand logic but you DO seem to like to quote it. Strange."

Well, you directly misused multiple logical fallacies and then use fallacious arguments against others. This claim is supported by factual statements.

Again, you don't seem to understand logic. Strongwranglers (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Please note that both the quotes and the rebuttals are your own words in the last 45 minutes. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 10:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Arguing on the technical definitions of logical fallacies on an ANI thread about disruptive editing behaviours is quite a microcosm of the subject's style of response in this thread so far. We should really have a more efficient method of dealing with this kind of time-consuming twist-and-turns that doesn't actually improve any article whatsoever. It's also an admirable demonstration of the subject's tendency to attack other editors in a thread about themselves. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 09:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Well they're not technical. Either something is correct or incorrect and in every case here you've been incorrect. It's not a personal judgement.

But you've been saying, to wit "2+2 = 6", and that is not correct, regardless of how correct one may feel in stating so. Strongwranglers (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

"But you've been saying, to wit "2+2 = 6", and that is not correct, regardless of how correct one may feel in stating so."

> This is actually the Straw man fallacy. I never said any of this and you are making a Straw man to claim that I did say it. This is a direct example of why I think your logic is not sound. You misuse fallacies while engaging in fallacious argumentation yourself. Strongwranglers (talk) 5:46 pm, Today (UTC+8) 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 10:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

As a conclusive response to @Strongwranglers's objection to my initial analysis, I just want to quote SW's words against themselves (all timestamps are in UTC):

1 / Isn't accusing me of being WP:LAME an actual ad hominem? - SW, 9:20

> You seem to be confused about its use: ad hominem is when you argue against the person's character, not merely their actions. - SW, 9:16

2 / You don't seem to understand logic but you DO seem to like to quote it. Strange. - SW, 9:21

> ad hominem is when you argue against the person's character - SW, 9:16

3 / Your use of logic is poor, demonstrably. - SW, 9:20 [No, your response didn't include many examples to demonstrate it].

> Such as? - 9:20

4 / "But you've been saying, to wit "2+2 = 6", and that is not correct, regardless of how correct one may feel in stating so." - SW, 9:57

> This is actually the Straw man fallacy. I never said any of this and you are making a Straw man to claim that I did say it. This is a direct example of why I think your logic is not sound. You misuse fallacies while engaging in fallacious argumentation yourself. - SW, 9:46

5 / Well, you directly misused multiple logical fallacies and then use fallacious arguments against others. This claim is supported by factual statements [.] Again, you don't seem to understand logic - SW, 9:55

> 5a) Such as? - SW, 9:20

> 5b) This is a really weird comment. Lots of Argument from fallacy. - SW, 9:18

6 / This is a really weird comment. Lots of Argument from fallacy. - SW, 9:18

> This is a really weird comment. Lots of Argument from fallacy. - SW, 9:18

7 / Why have such a strange fetish for a topic you don't seemingly understand? - SW, 9:20

> ad hominem is when you argue against the person's character - SW, 9:16

Therefore according to you, your own rebuttal is logically unsound. You claim to have refuted the soundness of my logic, but then immediately turn around to use the exact logic you just refuted. It is astounding how you much self-contradiction and hostility I find in your responses. Either you're not proofreading, not paying attention, or simply not capable of spotting any logical inconsistencies in your own words. Whatever the reason, none of your responses gave me any confidence in your willingness or competence to contribute to this project in a sufficiently constructive way. Before you jump into pointing out other people’s fault, first learn how not to bite yourself in your tail. I haven't even started on my suspicion of sockpuppetary for your familiarity with WP policies in such a breadth (though, not depth,) as a 20-day old account. Being able to stir up this much conflict with this many editors to end up in AN/I this quickly is quite a reason to suspect WP:NOTHERE in and of itself.

Your response here and recent edit history demonstrated your almost exclusive focus on attacking any one, even a passer by, trying to criticize you, to the point of threatening to "report [me] if [I] don't do so" [remove the NPA lv2 warning I left on your talk page], that it became unintentionally revealing.

Therefore, I'd like to request a SPI and propose a block, for trolling with battleground behaviour, CANTHEARYOU, PA, general disruptive behaviours and unwillingness to accept any critique and sustained hostility even in this ANI thread.海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 13:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Self-report of alleged BLP violations in Talk space

It was brought to my attention that Very Polite Person (VPP) has for some period of time been building, in his user space, a running archive of select Talk comments I've made. [45]
He feels these are BLP violations and is preparing to file it here once (I guess) he gets a critical mass. I hate to occupy the community's time with a "self-report", however, I'm going to be off-WP in the next few days and hope to resolve this in a way that I have opportunity to respond in case this Sword of Damocles drops while I'm gone.

• Background: This is part of a running epoch. As background for those new to this, the flying saucer space on WP is filled with pseudoscientific content from non-RS which I have been working on cleaning up. This has prompted an off-WP response from the flying saucer community who, in threads on Reddit and X, have threatened to have me desysoped, investigated by Congress, sued, doxed, and killed. NewsNation reported (without citing me by name) that I am a CIA asset, while others are saying that I am actually an alien who has infiltrated Wikipedia to stop "the truth" from getting out. (see: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], etc.)
• Current: Beyond the usual IP editor threats, a couple registered editors seem (but I have no way to say with certainty) to have responded to these exhortations, though, VPP has been notably enthusiastic. He follows me closely (see editor interaction report [53]); makes thinly veiled legal threats;[54] provides offers to "help" me improve my editing; [55] regularly remonstrates me (e.g. "admit you lost" [56] "Do you agree to my terms?" [57] "You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity" [58]" etc.); and tries to recruit allies to his crusade, avoiding pinging me by using codewords like "the user". [59]
  This rap sheet he's building alleging a pattern of BLP violations seems to be the climactic coup de grace in this campaign.

I've previously suggested to VPP that he might be better served addressing issues through alternative means (e.g. WP:DRN) since I've offered to adhere to reasonable outcomes from that, but he has not responded favorably. My attempts to reconcile, such as by !voting against the TBAN that had been proposed on him, have not helped. My efforts to simply avoid interacting with VPP have been fruitless as my very existence is what seems to annoy him. My response to VPPs forthcoming ANI filing is below and hatted due to sheer length.

Pre-responses to VPP's forthcoming ANI allegation

A typology of VPP's use of the claim of BLP violations in regard to forcing legitimacy of flying saucer belief into WP can be sectioned three ways:

• Type 1: His core MO is to legitimize flying saucer belief by downplaying the most unusual claims some individuals have made and to declare me in violation of BLP if I mention them in RSN or AFD.
• Type 2: He seems to believe use of the term "flying saucers" versus "unknown anomalous phenomenon" is a BLP violation ("flying saucers" is easily and universally understood by the vast majority of people not immersed in this space, and the preferred terminology of the UFO community changes with such frequency it's impossible to track).
• Type 3: He liberally characterizes routine edit debates in biography articles as shocking violations of BLP.

Below (in boxes) are quotes correctly attributed to me in Talk that VPP has placed in the monitoring archive [60] he's building and that he has identified as BLP violations. My responses to each follow.

2025-04-22T23:55:40

The late Harald Malmgren has catapulted to awareness in the wild corners of the internet populated by UFO enthusiasts due to his whacky claims about marauding space aliens. He was a minor staffer in the JFK administration and later worked as a financial advisor, though UFO enthusiasts on social media have recently reimagined him as the man who saved the world from nuclear apocalypse during the Cuban Missile Crisis (e.g. [1]) (based, apparently, on Malmgren's claims of having beaten Curtis LeMay in a staring contest).

This is a Type 1 complaint.

• First, Harald Mamlgren is dead, and was dead at the time. He is not covered by BLP.
  Second, this is a case of WP:CHARLATANS: Harald Malmgren's claims -- that JFK was killed to cover up space aliens, that Malmgren himself personally handled a flying saucer from outer space, etc. -- are whacky; among his many fabrications, he did indeed claim to beat Curtis LeMay in a staring contest (used by secondary as "faced down")[61] (The source cited here was discussed locally, at the article Talk page, and determined RS for this biography.)

• 2025-08-31T09:40:58

This is an article on a professor of flying saucers and ESP at Western Michigan University.

This is a Type 2 complaint.

• As per best practice, I begin each AfD I open with a brief description of what the subject is known for: e.g. "article is on a science communicator", "Article on a physics professor working on anti-gravity", "Article on a commuter airline." etc. This was the longstanding lead of the Michael Swords BLP at the time I AfDed it: "Michael D. Swords is a retired professor of Natural Science at Western Michigan University, who writes about general sciences and anomalous phenomena, particularly parapsychology, cryptozoology, and ufology, editing the academic publication The Journal of UFO Studies."

• 2025-09-08T13:49:26

Article on a professor of flying saucers

This is a Type 2 complaint.

• As per best practice, I begin each AfD I open with a brief description of what the subject is known for: e.g. "article is on a science communicator", "Article on a physics professor working on anti-gravity", "Article on a commuter airline." etc. Similarly, I opened the AfD on Svozil with a description of what he was known for: a professor who studied flying saucers. Svozil gives lectures on flying saucers [62], is the "go to person" in German media for quotes on flying saucers,[63], [64], [65] and his book-length, academic monograph is on the subject of flying saucers. [66]

• 2025-09-08T14:05:30

Article on a professor of flying saucers

This is a Type 2 complaint.

• As per with best practice, I begin each AfD I open with a brief description of what the subject is known for: e.g. "article is on a science communicator", "Article on a physics professor working on anti-gravity", "Article on a commuter airline." etc. Similarly, I opened the AfD on Knuth with a description of what he was known for: a professor who studied flying saucers. One-third of this BLP is a section called "UFO research" and it is mentioned prominently in the lead. [67]

2025-05-21T10:41:41 Note: This was inclusion of a BLP violation via the cite template's quote parameter; user added content from a gossip-column type source that the BLP subject's parents met at and through their escape from a "mental asylum"

This is a Type 3 complaint.

• First, VPP here characterizes as "gossip-column type source" The Mellons, a 354-page book published by Thomas Y. Crowell, reviewed by the New York Times [68] and written by the former Yale law professor and biographer David Koskoff.
  Second, it was not included in the body at all, apparently, but placed in the citation template as a necessary adjunct to content in the body as per WP:QPARA to "provide clarity for verification around specific facts sourced to a lengthy text; to eliminate ambiguity around controversial, disputed, or extraordinary claims; or in cases when a source is not available online". The body content merely observed where the parents met but did not include any material about the "escape from a mental asylum", however, in using QPARA we can't logically paraphrase quotes (that's why they're called quotes) like we can in the body and that's simply what the source said.
  Third, it's the subject of a Talk page discussion right now which is proceeding in a very routine manner that is not appropriate for ANI except to plump-up a "charging document" of the kind VPP has advanced. Unlike some admins, I am more active in content editing than administration and frequently engage in debates on Talk over content in my role as an editor.

In his monitoring archive on me, VPP raises several claims that were already discussed at length and resolved in his last complaint at ANI against me. For concision, I've only addressed the new batch. If there are specific ones omitted, that's the reason. Thank you. Chetsford (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Reply: Just want to note, I didn't start this. I was busy editing articles and this is a surprise. For "some time" is literally just today:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Very_Polite_Person/DR/BLP_issues&action=history
• User:Very Polite Person/DR/BLP issues <-- click here for a full list of Chetsford's BLP violations; he omitted half of them or so.

NOTE: Chetsford excels at trying to frame things to his advantage by misconstruing everything. He even links to an early verison of the list of offenses he made that I am assembling for future ArbCom (if he doesn't stop). He deliberately here linked to an older and shorter version of my collection of his BLP violations, excluding about half of the list to his advantage.

It would be appreciated if OP was willing to be completely forthright. Multiple editors have challenged them on this ongoing pattern of hostile behavior toward certain BLPs. I am not the only one. Please feel free to read all the links and discussions. @J Milburn: for instance scolded him rather forcefully on his own talk page for this behavior.

OP is upset because I called him out for an egregeious BLP violation on RSN. OP has been hounding me and this entire class of articles since @Jimbo Wales: waded into this AfD and scolded Chetsford for their opening remarks "per Very Polite Person". Since then, Chetsford has engaged in the above pattern of BLP problematic behaviors they openly admit to.

I think Chetsford needs a break from UFO-related topics, as all they seem to do is brawl with every user that 'dare' challenge them in that space. All I've been doing is asking for BLP compliance and sourcing articles. I don't know what their issue is, but I want them to leave me and BLPs alone respectfully. Nothing more. Click here for my entire lifetime edit history. I invite anyone to find anything problematic since the last time Chetsford (It was AndyTheGrump, not Chetsford, I am informed--which has no bearing on the BLP violations by Chetsford; sorry I got the name wrong in that wild thread), or whomever (I can't find the diff, it was thousands ago) tried to get me community banned for, I guess, out-sourcing someone on an AfD article. I have no idea what his problem is, but it seems self-inflicted. I'm just making articles; I have like 6 pending GAs and another half-dozen in flight. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Note previous ANI on this topic. My closure of that discussion should be reiterated: VPP, having any log of 'violations by Chetsford' is a bad look after that last discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I literally have done nothing except ask him to be respectful on BLP matters; he was just torn apart on his own talk page by a 20+ year admin for this very behavior in the past 36 hours (archived now). I'm not the one escalating this, whatsoever. Chetsford is acting in bad faith here. Look at my history. All I've been doing is build articles. Is Chetsford protected from DR and ArbCom procedure for some reason? Am I supposed to compile evidence off-wiki, or transparently here? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Suggesting that someone is protected from DR and ArbCom procedure for some reason when they've pointed you to WP:DRN is...a bit strange. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I have no idea. Literally all I want is for him to stop those BLP violations, by choice or force. I don't care which. I'm just here to build articles, as my history proves (just look at my user page and edits). I'm genuinely asking; if I'm worried I need to get into dispute resolution that I need to collect evidence. Where am I supposed to collect it, if assembling it is problematic? The very implication is I'm supposed to work from some handicap?

  I didn't want to bother them with anything formal because I hoped after multiple people kept chiding him he'd stop, but then today he calls a BLP basically physicall defective. Click here. What am I supposed to? Ignore BLP violations because it's Chetsford? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know if this is where it originated, but the claim I'm "protected" is a common one made in one of the numerous Reddit threads about me. The legend goes that, due to my affiliations with the CIA in covering up truth of alien visitation, I have some type of "overlord" powers over the WMF. One of these threads is linked in my OP, or just run "Chetsford" through Reddit search. Chetsford (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  If you are here to build articles, stop WP:HOUNDING Chetsford. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:AGF, please. I'm not "hounding" anyone. We've always edited similar articles; we worked fine together in January for hundreds of overlapping edits on some articles. I generally vote with him on his AfDs, because again: we read and follow similarly overlapping articles, and always have. I have no more 'claim' to the spaces we edit than he does. He voted fairly in an AfD I began, I recall. I've readily voted fairly on his, and on a few (I'm hardly the only one, others have "rescued" his AfD articles before), I managed to save them because they were indeed notable. Nothing wrong with any of this.

  I'm being hauled up here for starting to do the Dispute Resolution process--which is my right and I will that the same as any other user--hours after I began to start putting it together. And all because I was one of about 4-5 editors who tried to tell Chetsford they were committing BLP violations.

  If that's bannable, fuck me I guess. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Very Polite Person: It is typically considered better to compile this type of evidence regarding specific users off-wiki, although I can't point to a specific policy in that regard. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  It would be nice if that was obviously communicated somewhere somehow, then, if I wasn't supposed to do this on-wiki in an easy to access transparent method. I have nothing to hide. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  The applicable guidance is at WP:POLEMIC. Schazjmd (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I've never seen that before. It says: The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.

  What is timely? I literally began this: User:Very_Polite_Person/DR/BLP_issues around 3-4 hours ago as I reply to you. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  "although I can't point to a specific policy in that regard" Compiling "rap sheets" has generally been covered by WP:HOUNDING. Chetsford (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:POLEMIC posted right above you: The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. I began tracking your BLP violations for DR purposes less than five hours ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Very_Polite_Person/DR/BLP_issues&action=history — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of this but I will confront the most outrageous lies told about me: "...since the last time Chetsford tried to get me community banned for, I guess, out-sourcing him on article." The reality is AndyTheGrump (not me) opened a TBAN (not a CBAN) proposal on you and I !voted against (not for) it.[69] I've been very tolerant about your misrepresentations of my actions in Talk, but I can't be as libertine at ANI. The correct venue to spread rumors about me is Reddit, not ANI. (Here's a person who is claiming I kidnapped them [70] even.) Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  User:Very_Polite_Person/DR/BLP_issues

  Why did you omit half of the edits by you that I flagged?

  Could you explain to the WP:ANI audience what happened here on your talk page when a veteran Admin just tore into you for your actions toward BLPs? I didn't start this here today. You did. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

That's fully addressed in the 2025-09-08T13:49:26 edit response as anyone can see who clicks expand. Now are you going to strike your lie about me trying to get you CBANned? Chetsford (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Why did you call BLP Nick Pope in this edit physically defective today? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Which part of that message do you read as saying "physically defective"? Can you please quote it directly? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I assume “might be unable to distinguish humans from non-human objects which, according to the CONLERN theory, [71] is an ability essentially all humans attain within 90 days of birth. We should be cautious assigning reliability for any fact whatsoever—no matter how basic—to a person who may have trouble doing something like telling the difference between humans and non-human objects, as every single fact is more complex than that.” IMO accusing a BLP of being mentally disabled is a personal attack. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but that's far from "physically defective". I was wondering if VPP had posted the wrong diff or something. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I would think that ceasing to develop as an infant would be a physical and mental disability but that’s really pedantic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you read these at the proper URL versus Chetsfords bizarrely truncated version? User:Very_Polite_Person/DR/BLP_issues Him associating BLPs with Nazis and mental asylums, implying they are the child of crazy people? @Feoffer:; who removed that BLP violation. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to further repost this nonsense by them. Click that bolded link and control-f for Mr Pope might be unable to. Starts there. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Your modus operandi in this ANI of piling lies upon lies about me is absolutely outrageous. You first claimed I tried to get you CBANNed (a claim you still refuse to retract). You now claim I called (in quotes) Nick Pope "physically defective", which is debunked by your own diff. Chetsford (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Is saying that he lacks “an ability essentially all humans attain within 90 days of birth” not calling him physically defective? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't seem physical to me. So yeah, a bit of a non sequitur, in my opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Was it you? I have no goddamn clue at this point because that discussion dragged out for around 50 printed pages and multiple editors were getting scrutinized. I don't pay attention to all this political stuff. I'm busy making articles.

Why don't you explain to us exactly how this diff of you violating BLP exonerates you from having violated BLP? You even got chastised today for it here on this edit by @Nigel Ish:. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

"Was it you? I have no goddamn clue at this point" You're just shotgunning out accusations about me even though you "have no goddamn clue" whether they're true? I kindly request you stop doing that, please. Chetsford (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Show me the direct edit of who proposed community banning me and I'll amend above.

Meanwhile, why don't you explain to us exactly how this diff of you violating BLP exonerates you from having violated BLP? You even got chastised today for it here on this edit — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

"Show me the direct edit of who proposed community banning me and I'll amend above." It's not the job of the accused to disprove your claims. It's your job to prove them. Show the diff of when I tried to have you community banned. Chetsford (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Why do you keep ignoring your gross BLP violation here? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Because I addressed it already, in the separate conversation above. This conversation is about a separate one of the umpteen accusations you've made about me, which I've four times now asked you to either prove with a diff or retract. This approach of simply launching a tornado of claims with no diffs or order is a unique one, but not helpful to facilitation of coherent response. Chetsford (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Because I addressed it already, in the separate conversation above.

You literally didn't and even linked to a random version of User:Very_Polite_Person/DR/BLP_issues that showed only HALF of what I was going to take you to DR/ArbCom for if you didn't stop.

You have not explained or addressed this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1311434184&oldid=1311433503

I have done literally nothing wrong today, or yesterday, or the day before, etc. I'm not the one attacking BLPs. Explain yourself to your fellow Admins. Why did you make that edit? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

An editor questioned whether Mr Pope was reliable for "basic bio data". I factually observed Mr Pope has discussed the pseudoscientific idea that "shapeshifters" could appear to be humans and one couldn't tell the difference between them.
I then noted that if he truly held this belief it would disqualify him for even "basic bio data" as there is no bio data more basic than species identification. To prove this, I cited a study that showed species identification is the most basic bio data. You intentionally misread that to advance the false claim that I was saying Pope had a defect and, when that didn't stick, you simply lied and said I directly called Pope "physically defective" which I did not.
Any reasonable person reading my reply will see I went out of my way to tiptoe through this minefield of absolute bonkers lunacy by making a tortuously constructed comment that could still frankly address Pope's "unusual" beliefs.
Now, back to the topic: will you retract the other lie you made about me in this ANI (regarding the CBAN)? Fifth request. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Saying that he "might be unable to distinguish humans from non-human objects which [...] is an ability essentially all humans attain within 90 days of birth" is obviously calling him physically defective and is plainly a personal attack. Shapeshifters have nothing to do with that; while obviously not real, believing in a fantastical thing does not mean you are lacking human development milestones and strikes me as ableist. You could have just said this shows poor judgement and so Pope is unreliable for that, but you alleged biomedical information and illness on a BLP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

As a person with disability, I fail to see how that is ableist. Poorly worded, I agree (saying Pope lacks self-awareness would suffice, even if it's still mean), but not ableist. MiasmaEternal☎ 00:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO saying that believing strange or illogical things is evidence one is disabled (as I interpret lacking "an ability essentially all humans attain within 90 days of birth") is ableist. Plenty of disabled people don't believe in paranormal stuff and plenty of people who aren't do. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

So that there is absolutely no ambiguity on this point: Pope has not publicly acknowledged any disability and no one (including myself) has any reason to believe he is disabled. And whether or not he's abled or disabled is irrelevant to his reliability in any case. If that doesn't settle it for you, I really don't know what will. Chetsford (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That someone is not actually disabled doesn't make it not ableism to insinuate "crazy ideas = person must be "unable to distinguish humans from non-human objects"". PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Those ellipses, in combination with the quote VPP fabricated and falsely attributed to me ("physically defective"), are doing a lot of heavy lifting. Chetsford (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I think "physically defective" is a fair summary of what you said. It was not in quotes the first time it was said, so it was a summary of what you said, not a direct quote. Your quote was "might be unable to distinguish humans from non-human objects which, according to the CONLERN theory, [230] is an ability essentially all humans attain within 90 days of birth. We should be cautious assigning reliability for any fact whatsoever—no matter how basic—to a person who may have trouble doing something like telling the difference between humans and non-human objects, as every single fact is more complex than that."

What was excised was "according to the CONLERN theory [72]", including your link to a study unrelated to Pope. The ellipses don't do any lifting at all, I excised them because they did not change the meaning at all. This does not make it less of a Blp violation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

"I think "physically defective" is a fair summary of what you said." It wasn't a summary, it was presented as a direct quote that VPP falsely attributed to me. And even as a summary it's not accurate, as I already explained. In any case, these readings of "meanings within meanings" and the use of fabricated quotes and creative ellipses leave me struggling to AGF that this is about protecting a BLP, as opposed to protecting the flying saucer topic from the excision of cruft. Chetsford (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it wasn't presented as a direct quote, it was presented as a summary. This is the first time they said it. [73] Quote: "but then today he calls a BLP basically physicall [sic] defective."

This is not meanings within meanings but you speculating about the medical information of BLPs. Even if done as a snarky joke about fringe people, as I'm sure you intended it, that is still a BLP violation, whether you meant it as a joke or not. Speculating about medical things of BLPs and synthing Nazi relatives into articles is inappropriate on BLP topics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

What does the Reddit post have to do with this at all? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I voted delete in that AfD, but I do think the Svozil comments were concerning in that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the article or the deletion nom. They were unrelated purely negative comments about a BLP. I see VPP and Josh’s concern, though I’m not sure if they rise to BLP violations they seemed inadvisable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• I was pinged into the discussion above. I love working with Chetsford, but... some the edits under discussion have been quite egregious BLP vios (in my opinion). We all make mistakes, but SYNTH about a Nazi grandparent or mental-patient parents is just something we cannot have at the project. It's way, way, way over the line. The proposed deletion of Malmgreen was another huge error that, while not a BLPvio, really did hurt the project a bit as one of our admins (Chetsford) appeared (to some) to be acting more as advocate than editor. "Neatness counts" -- even the appearance of agenda or impropriety serve to undermine the quality of our project. Feoffer (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

"The proposed deletion of Malmgreen was another huge error ... "Neatness counts" Feoffer, with all due respect, you have an AfD match rate of 55 percent largely due to your Keep !votes for poorly sourced conspiracy cruft. Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I did my best to help you understand why your behavior has generated controversy. Sorry it didn't work out. Feoffer (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

My "behavior" (excising unsourced pseudoscience from our encyclopedia) has generated "controversy" (on Reddit and X) because Ross Coulthart nationally broadcast he has insider information I'm an "Intelligence Community asset" (presumably in retribution for Ross being deprecated at RSN due to an RfC I opened [74]), because flying saucer believers with large social media followings have been claiming that I'm a space alien trying to suppress the truth [75] or am part of a shadowy cabal, [76] or am secretly being controlled by sgerbic [77] or that I'm secretly being leaked names of flying saucer whistleblowers and then nominating them for AfD before they "break into the news cycle" [78] or that I'm a sock of LuckyLouie [79] and both of us are actually Mick West in disguise, etc. And there are three registered editors heavy into conspiracy cruft articles who apparently believe that. Chetsford (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The proposed deletion of Malmgren and the BLP issues were and are controversial amongst trusted editors here on Wikipedia, not just offwiki socks and FRINGE advocates. Feoffer (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems both irrelevant and rude. jp×g🗯️ 19:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Very Polite Person:, you were asked multiple times to strike your claim that Chetsford attempted to get you cbanned, as this was factually untrue - in fact, Chetsford originally !voted neutral in that discussion about a tban from UFO topics, which was started by AndyTheGrump, and then changed to oppose it. You have refused to do so, and in most of the cases where this was requested your response was asking anohter, unrelated, attacking question. Since you have done this, consider this my admin hat on: strike your aspersions that Chetsford attempted to have you cbanned or you will be blocked for personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  I've corrected my misremembering of a stressful 50+ page thread from May 2025; my apologies. It was indeed AndyTheGrump, and I'm sorry -- I'm trying to keep up with these unexpected made up attacks (fake claim I "fabricated" a quote; disproven above) and this new wild thread. Sorry for the delay; sometimes real life gets in the way and I was 20 tabs deep trying to find diffs from that absurd prior thread.

  I did not begin this thread or commit these BLP violations. All I did was ask this user to stop attacking BLPs directly or indirectly, in the past. I figured it was over until this new edit by them. I don't even understand how this is being attempted to Boomerang toward me, when I literally did... nothing I'm not allowed to do, just like any other editor? That multiple other editors concurrently engaged Chetsford over? I don't have any restrictions on me, I have done nothing wrong, and I respectfully will remind you to WP:AGF. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. However, AGF is not a suicide pact. The previous discussion was this close to topic-banning you from UFO topics. It could, potentially, have been closed with a topic ban; if it was a simple headcount, you would have been topic-banned. Even when you don't have any restrictions, a mindful editor, when faced with this, would stay well away from even appearing to engage with the same sort of behavior that led to that near topic ban. And your editing elsewhere has been exemplary - your contributions on ANI have been thoughtful and well-regarded since then. But here we are with a resumption of the battleground mentality from the previous discussion. If Chetsford is, as you claim, so flagrantly violating BLP, editors who are not you will be aware of this and will bring it to the community's attention. There is no need for you and you specifically do to so, especially when it carries the distinct appearance of Wikihounding, and your responses are both extremely combative to Chetsford and Wikilawyerish to others (as seen directly above). The encyclopedia will survive whether or not you take up this crusade. I would suggest you drop the stick, stay very well away from Chetsford, and continue with the "editing elsewhere" that has been productive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm going to follow policy and work on the articles I have always worked on since the day I joined, because I've literally done nothing wrong. I was asked to chill out and not argue so much: I have not.

  There is no resumption of anything by me. He and I have always overlapped on a number of article topics. There is literally zero beef I have with this guy, except I want him to stop BLP violations; he has been non-responsive, so I told him I'd finally try and do DR, and would assemble stuff for it. I hoped it was over; it wasn't, he did it again, so I started to assemble evidence for DR. Which is literally from everything I've read how I'm supposed to be doing this. I will challenge anyone to find a single issue with a single edit of mine since May that violates a policy. If I violated one, I have literally no clue I did.

  Stay well away from Chetsford--since we both focus on overlapping military, aerospace and psychology-related topics, means I literally don't edit anything under my expertise except for legal articles, which means I have no role here. So no. I am under no restriction and I've literally done nothing wrong. How on Earth am I even the target when the OP self-admitted committing all these BLP violations? I wasn't even planning to go to like Arbocom or anything but WP:DR at first. But now this is being escalated, and I am not the one escalating anything. I'm not going to bullied when I've done literally nothing wrong, and no one has shown me what I've done wrong, beyond misremembering who first called for banning me in six months ago. Honestly, I am dumbfounded that I am being attacked for asking someone to not commit BLP violations. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  So, now everyone has seen his edits, and that's all it was going to be anyway eventually, which is all I wanted in the first place when I was going to take him to WP:DR. My editing has been, for the record, exemplary on all my Article edits, thank you. I genuinely appreciate your candor, but seriously: it's not wikihounding to ask someone to not commit a BLP violation, and MULTIPLE editors did. If Chetsford doesn't want me on his talk page anymore, fine by me. I ask the same.

  There's no way we can't avoid each other on Articles and AfDs, and neither of us has claim to over overlapping aerospace/military interests. Reminder, that we worked together fine multiple times, I usually vote with him on his prolific AfD'ing, and my literally only stress is his BLP issues. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

"All I did was ask this user to stop attacking BLPs directly or indirectly" I explained, in OP, why opening an AfD with "article is on a professor of flying saucers" (three of your claims) when it's an article on a professor chiefly known for his study of flying saucers is not an attack on BLPs. I explained why commenting on a dead person (another of your claims) isn't an attack on BLPs. You haven't explained these false claims of BLP violations once in this thousands of words thread. I insist you either defend these claims of BLP violations or rescind them.
"I don't even understand how this is being attempted to Boomerang toward me, when I literally did... nothing" You (and to a lesser extent your two compatriots) have been relentlessly following me from AfD to AfD [80], then today started creating an archive of my Talk comments which you started cheerily shopping around [81] to drum-up support for an ANI filing. When confronted, as occurred last time, you feign a chaste, surprised innocence — "I literally did ...nothing". No reasonable editor can be expected to live with a person so determined to make his life as utterly miserable as you have made it your mission to do with me. Chetsford (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No reasonable editor can be expected to live with a person so determined to make his life as utterly miserable as you have made it your mission to do with me.

Everyone else stay out of this thread, please.

Explain to me what I've done that so badly upset you recently. Let's be granular and DR, right now. Please: Pick one to start. These are our only real interactions:

A) Our AfD interactions? I usually vote WITH you. I have saved several articles per WP:GNG and consensus that you nominated. I don't even look twice with most of yours when I see your name on the day pages, since I trust your judgment on most of them. I've told you before: you have a better eye for that.

B) Our discussions on Noticeboards ourside BLP contexts? We don't really interact. Did I miss something?

C) Our mutual talk page interactions? They were cordial as hell for a while, and then it seemed to change, and not from me it seemed. We used to edit together, on that dumb NJ Drone thing. So then we only interacted on AfDs after. Was I being cheeky when I offered my help on your WP:BEFORE searches? I guess it could be read that way, but I kept finding stuff you missed.

D) Me calling out the BLP vios? How I did it?

Let's figure this the fuck out. From my side: literally all I want is you to lay off the BLP insults. We make a good team stress testing articles and always have since we met. We've asked each other for help multiple times in the past.

Just tell me what is going on. Pick one to start. Tell me. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Very Polite Person: this is your thread to close. I merely engaged in the formality of opening it. If you want to adhere to my previous suggestion of dispute resolution I remain, as I stated, happy to do so. But you will have to request closure. As my only role was to port over your filing from userspace to ANI, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do so. But, so there's no ambiguity, I would consent to having this closed pending your request and what seems to be an understanding to pursue dispute resolution through WP:3O or some other means you find satisfactory. Chetsford (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Can I suggest that some of the people in this thread try to be more succinct. An editor casually passing by (like me) has no chance to understand what's going on with so much extraneous verbiage. If somebody has caused a problem, say what policy was violated and list some diffs, the best ones, ideally the three best ones, and leave it there. I noticed this because of the ANI notice given to User:Jimbo which was unnecessary grandstanding IMHO. I will now happily unwatch this page. Jehochman ^Talk 02:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Chetsford, why are we here? WP:POLEMIC has a specific carve-out for gathering evidence so long as it doesn't stay around forever. It hasn't been forever. Keeping such evidence off-wiki may be preferred, for obvious reasons, but it's not against any policy that I know of. You say "It was brought to my attention"; either someone told you or you're watching VPP's contributions. Tamzin and I both warned you in May that your judgement in the Christopher Mellon affair left much to be desired. Now, we're back here because of an incident that you've deliberately provoked, and that's without analyzing the BLP issue. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

POLEMIC is not something I take issue with, VPP is entitled to keep a rap sheet on me for a period of time, if he likes. I opened this for no other reason than I'll shortly be out of town a few weeks, and VPP has recently been shopping this rap sheet around (e.g. [82] etc.) I'd prefer to dispose of the matter while I'm still able to respond so advanced it. Chetsford (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You self-reported for a possible BLP violation yesterday: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#BLP violation in article Talk. Several users agreed there's a problem, including VPP (obviously), who brings up the list they've compiled of what they think are past issues. You then come here to ANI, notionally self-reporting yourself, but also raising a variety of issues, not all of which are even to do with VPP. The escalation seems unjustified. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Chetsford, You've repeated a few times now that VPP has followed you closely, from AFD to AFD, and you've cited the editor interaction report. The report shows that you both edit similar spaces and you're both active in AFDs in those spaces... but I'm not seeing anything immediately jumping out as hounding. I know you wouldn't make that aspersion baselessly -- any chance you can illustrate that hounding with diffs beyond the couple of conversations in your original post here? --tony 02:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

In the last 30 days:

(a) four of the last 10 AfDs VPP has participated in were started by me, despite these being deletion sorted into a range of topics [83] (by my count, in the same period of time, more than 300 different editors have opened AfDs so a 40% overlap does seem statistically improbable but I AGF due to small sample size);

(b) VPP has only participated in one thread at WP:RSN and it was one which I opened;

(c) VPP has twice sealioned my Talk page, once omening a lawsuit the WMF lost and the other an "offer" to "help" me with editing.

Overall, in recent history, we have participated in 13 AfDs, and in 100% of cases he entered an AfD in which I was already participating,[84] in 0% I entered one in which he was already participating. I have thus far AGF these points of unidirectional interaction were a coincidence and have been cautious about seeing a WP:DUCK where none existed. When I became aware he was also cataloging my Talk comments it became harder to AGF, though I remain open to doing so. Chetsford (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

From what I can see, all four AfDs VPP participated in that you started were all on authors who wrote about UFOs (Bruni, Svozil, Fowler, Randel). The RSN thread was about UFOs. That is not exactly a "range of topics" and all except Svozil were sorted into the paranormal deletion sorting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Chetsford -- I didn't realize you could sort by all the fields on that interaction tool. So of those AfDs (because we have always edited overlapping topics) I (sorting them A-Z):

• rewrote the article and it ended Keep, next stop GA.
• voted with you for !delete.
• voted a !keep and others saved it.
• rewrote the article and it ended Keep, already GA nominated.
• "Delete per Chetsford."
• rewrote the article and it ended Keep, next stop GA.
• initial !delete > then !keep for a variety of reasons in a messy AfD. I think it was your BLP issues there that flipped me keep. Still open.
• voted with you for !delete.
• we argued substantially and it ended redirect, not delete.
• voted with you for !delete.
• you withdrew as !Keep because I every-character rewrote it, next stop GA.
• I said redirect and you agreed.

We agree about 50% of the time, which is how we've always been. Interestingly: I am first (by far) on article space overlap vs you, by time and volume. You are first on Wikipedia space, which makes sense as you spend much more time on Wikipedia, like I spend more on Article.

Is this because I saved a few of your recent AfDs? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

See my comment here [85]. I think we've wasted enough of all these good people's time but I defer to you as to how you want to proceed. Chetsford (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey all, I was tagged in this thread and just read this through. This makes me soooooo sad to see all the escalation. I'm the one that UFO twitter and Reddit is normally angry at, so it's odd to see this nonsense aimed at Chetsford who is doing a terrific job of getting old-neglected UFO people's articles rewritten. I've made several videos explaining the behind the scenes of how editing happens, and I've gotten some really great comments from people who say they have learned a lot from me explaining. Chetsford, I don't know you at all, but want you to understand that there is zero wrong with being associated with me or GSoW, take it as a compliment. These people who are attacking you off Wikipedia are soooo clueless about this process that it makes me sad for them. I saw that video of Ross talking about the Guerilla skeptics getting sexual gratification for being on the team, dude that is just priceless and hilarious. I've been showing that clip everywhere since I found it a few days ago. He's talking about me, not you. I'm sorry you are under attack because of the misinterpreted actions of GSoW, we keep on plugging on and every time they say that Congress is going to haul me in I plan on what I'm going to wear and gosh darn it, they never call me in. I could go broke on all the outfits if I actually went and purchased them. And VPP, what the heck are you doing making a list of things you think Chetsford has written or done? Come on now, don't do that, this is a team player, you both have the same goals, to make Wikipedia the best it can be. Yes, people might get a bit snooty with their responses at times, and text doesn't always relay what was meant. Keep in mind that Chetsford is an admin and I can't even imagine the nonsense he has seen and I bet it comes at him all day and night. So I don't know if anyone cares what I think, or how this administrators noticeboard works, but I had to go though Abcom and what a nightmare that was, a few people had my back, but a lot of people jumped uninvited into the conversation and I swear I didn't sleep for days just dealing with the comments. So PLEASE stop quoting policy and diffs at each other. Please deescalate this. It won't end up well and you will lose sleep. Chetsford you mentioned you are about to go off Wiki, please take a break away and please don't leave the UFO topic, there is so much work to be done and you are forcing it to get done. And VPP please please don't keep lists on or off Wikipedia about another editor's talk page quotes. Whoever is in charge here, please help calm this down, we need both of these editors and many more like them. My two cents for what it's worth. Sgerbic (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

what the heck are you doing making a list of things you think Chetsford has written or done? Come on now, don't do that, this is a team player Okay, but being a good team mate is everyone helping everyone else to improve. Chetford does so much great work and are SUCH an asset -- but a few actions are seriously seriously problematic, and we don't do anyone any favors if we pretend otherwise. Feoffer (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Whoever is in charge here, <- this is the person teaching others how to edit Wikipedia, btw. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey! I spend very little time dealing with admin things, I teach my team to write content, hopefully correctly so we don't have to spend time knowing much about noticeboards. So there! The rest of my time is spent looking longingly at business suits to wear to a Congressional Hearing. I gots priorities. Sgerbic (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Just because Chetsford is an alien, that doesn't mean he can't edit Wikipedia. In light of Chetsford's infamy, VPP's compilation of Chetsford's "wrongdoings" is inappropriate. Just because someone is working on a dozen GAs that doesn't mean they can create a hostile environment for another editor. Might be time for a one-way IBAN? Shouldn't affect VPP too much, since they're here to "write articles". TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• This thread finds small purchase with "...urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Augmented Seventh (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

"In light of Chetsford's infamy" I do not think that just because someone has been very unfairly criticized offwiki that makes them immune to criticism onwiki. I sympathize because I am sure dealing with that offsite harassment is awful, and I appreciate the work that Chetsford does, but their conduct here is not flawless and I don't think the BLP concerns brought up are entirely without merit. Previous disputes aside, I do consider some of the decisions made here to be concerning when it comes to BLP policy, especially given that they are an administrator. VPP has not been the only person to point this out, though I do agree that VPP's conduct in places has sometimes been suboptimal and their constant appeals to the quality of articles they write will not save them in a dispute.

What sticks out to me are the two incidents where Chetsford added extremely negative material about a BLP's relatives that had not been mentioned in a reliable source in reference to the subject or were very poorly sourced (that one was a virulent Nazi and that some relatives were mentally institutionalized), which they re-added when other editors removed it. I found this concerning at the time, and after an RfC it was agreed to not include it. Whether the intention or not, and I doubt Chetsford's intention was to denigrate the subject, it had the effect of doing so, without that fact being mentioned in RS. Further, they have a habit of making very snarky comments, which is fine but when it comes to BLPs sometimes verges into the problematic. Like the comment today saying that a BLP "might be unable to distinguish humans from non-human objects which, according to the CONLERN theory, [230] is an ability essentially all humans attain within 90 days of birth" — this is recent, and I really just cannot possibly see how this is not a BLP violation. This, while I understand it to be a joke, is saying that the BLP is mentally deficient in some manner. If I said this about another editor I would expect to be blocked. I don't think the "professor of flying saucers" statement was a BLP vio but given it was not mentioned in the article at all and, looking up the guy shows it is a very minor aspect of him, it seemed like a needless dig at him.

I am further concerned because they do not seem to recognize why other people take issue with these statements, at least in this thread. At the very least, going forward it would be nice if more thought could be put into what is said about the living subjects of articles. All I would ask is that Chetsford keep in mind that the subjects of these articles are humans, however wonky their ideas may be, and debunking or deleting WP:FRINGE does not require or is helped by these statements being made made about BLPs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not think that just because someone has been very unfairly criticized offwiki that makes them immune to criticism onwiki.

I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear. I meant that it is bad form to compile the list publicly. VPP could have made the list privately and when they're ready start a thread at ArbCom or AN about it. A public page on Wikipedia invites collaboration. If I am working on an article and I want it to be a certain way before I publish it, then I write it on my computer. If I have made a page on Wikipedia then that signals "take this info and use it" or "please work on this".

I just have a hard time believing the list was made in good faith (although I'm open to being convinced). It also goes against VPP's claim that they made every attempt to work with Chetsford. If I make a list of things I think another editor has done wrong, how can I then expect that editor to want to work with me? And why would they want to, when I have made it clear that I will scrutinise their every action and put it on a list for all to find? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree it was not a good decision, but there is not a rule against that and it is explicitly allowed by WP:POLEMIC. Which may not be the wisest guideline. Probably no one should do that publicly. But there it is.

I would guess, though I am not a mind reader, it was good faith insofar as it seems to me a plausible result of being very interested in the "UFOs" topic area and being very concerned about BLP issues, which VPP has demonstrated they are even in unrelated topic areas. see Charlie Kirk discussions above, on that page, and related discussion on the BLP page about BLPCRIME, which reading that discussion seems to have given them a renewed concern for "BLP violations" which may have in some form been the impetus for this.

The list was started a few hours before this thread was made. But I can't read anyone's minds. I think that the concerns could have been dealt with in a much better way and some of what they called BLP concerns were mundane (e.g. I think calling something a vanity page is well within the bounds of encyclopedic dialogue). But I understand the concern, though this was very counterproductive. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I imagine when you're so often attacked off-site -- as I have learned (from Chetsford) that they often are -- it can become easy to view looming dispute resolution as an upcoming battle, especially if you feel you excel on such ground. How does one win an upcoming fight? As Sun Tzu famously wrote, the way to win a battle on Wikipedia is to surprise the enemy by posting an incomplete draft of their words at ANI.

If I found an hours-old document in someone's userspace of things I've said that they had problems with, obviously being written for DR, I'd be offended. It would make me feel bad. If I were confident in my position, I would probably prepare my own evidence (in google docs) for the eventual discussion. I think most people would as well. I think most people would not try to avoid dispute resolution altogether by preemptively exposing the other person's arguments at ANI.

I generally agree with Chetsford on most things I see them in disputes about on this project. They're an entertaining and effective communicator. The question of whether "professor of flying saucers" is perfectly descriptive or disruptively pejorative is, genuinely, an interesting conversation that I would like to hear them participate in. But unfortunately that's not the conversation we're having right now. We're talking about VPP because VPP... followed the guideline as written at WP:POLEMIC. tony 12:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Chetsford has offered to do dispute resolution in a response in this ANI thread so I am not sure this is them trying to avoid it. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The comment about "unable to distinguish humans from non-human objects" is a serious BLP violation and was out of order, although Chetsford has since [denied] that they were speculating about the person's mental health. What needs to be done is to ensure that these sorts of attacks don't happen again, either by Chetford or anyone else. They distract from what the discussions are trying to achieve.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• VPP took umbrage with Chetsford at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sol Foundation and would seem to have been pursuing them, on and off, or when an opportunity presents itself, since. And as most of these so-called violations have been addressed previously (and not with the 'severe chastisement' that VPP would have us believe), this operation rather smacks of spaghetti/walls. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Having a look at the last discussion at ANI it appears to me that VPP was exceedingly close to copping a TBAN. Do we need to be having that discussion again? TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe? The May discussion was compromised by the way Chetsford handled the Mellon stuff. I'd like to see someone articulate in one paragraph, with diffs, why VPP (and only VPP) is a problem in this topic area. Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Here is every single edit of mine since it was proposed last time:

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=2025-09-16&namespace=all&start=2025-05-16&tagfilter=&target=Very+Polite+Person&offset=&limit=50000

  As I've said repeatedly, I have nothing to hide. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Well in this case it's likely to be "compromised" by Chetsford ridiculous comment on Pope so I'm not sure if the result will be any different. Still as I said below, if editors want to do it then do it. I'm not sure there's much point discussing further whether to do it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• If editors want to TBAN one or both of these editors then it might be best to just propose it. Otherwise I'm not sure this thread is productive. Chetsford says they want to resolve this but VPP says they are complying evidence for an arbcom case. As others have pointed out, it would be better to keep it private but since the page is a very recent creation it doesn't seem to violate WP:POLEMIC assuming that VPP intends to decide within a few weeks whether to open a case or delete the page. Chetsford says they want this resolved before they leave for a few weeks but realistically that seems unlikely. I mean VPP could decide to just take the evidence offline or that they will give up on opening a case now, but they're not required to. It seems unlikely they're going to be able to file a case before Chetsford leaves but even if they do, arbcom cases if they're accepted take time & even acceptance/denial can take time so fair chance the case will just need to be put on hold while Chetsford is away. I can understand why having a possible arbcom case in the future might be annoying for Chetsford but pretty much any of us need to accept it's a possibility and while an editor actively gathering evidence for a possible case does make it seem much more likely it will happen, it's still always a risk we take by editing here & something we all have hovering over our heads. Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• There is unfortunately an off-wiki organised campaign to harash Chetsford and to civ push fringe UFO content, but that's not an excuse to make such comments about BLPs. Chetsford needs to temper the language they use when it comes to living people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break / What are we doing here?

Wow, nearing 40kB of additions from 0000 to noon UTC! But at this point, what are we doing? The wheels have been spinning for awhile now and plenty of diffs have been thrown around. Is anyone inclined to pick their favorites and make a succinct proposal? Does nobody have a strong enough case to make? Does nobody feel their grievances are grievous enough to be actionable? If not, then what need is there for us to continue this? I'm no Nostradamus, but from how this has progressed so far it's hard to see anything coming of this more than telling Chetsford to treat BLPs with more care and let people make their own ANI posts, and telling VPP to not maintain a burn book of another editor if they're too busy to/not intending to present a proper case at an appropriate venue. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The "burn book" was created less than 24 hours ago, so I think it's well on the correct side of WP:POLEMIC, The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Right, Thank you. Hard to keep track of what's real and what's a creative description of events in this thread sometimes. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Temporary or permanent IBan both ways? Whatever the source of the current issue is, it certainly appears highly acrimonious both ways with both pointing the finger at each other which has devolved into a WP:WALLOFTEXT that is hard to tease actionable issues out of. If there are grounds for either party to receive some sort of restriction or reprimand it'll likely be reported by someone else and can be dealt with at the time. But right now it just seems to mostly be two editors who don't get along who are not happy with each other. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

For clarity, because it keeps getting repeated incorrectly like I kept a long-standing dossier: that page was several hours hold when this thread was began by not me. It was a draft, and the first link here literally goes to an outdated version, because it was a draft that was barely hours old. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I have made Chetsford aware that WP:BLP is a contentious topic and as a CTOP action formally warned them to use an appropriate tone when writing about or discussing living people and to avoid attacking or insulting living people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, per this thread and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP_violation_in_article_Talk, it seems Chetsford is on a bit of a self-reporting spree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

"What are we doing here?" A proposal

To the question of what are we doing? VPP has raised a huge number of issues only one of which (Pope) has been addressed. I struck [86] that comment minutes after a second editor raised BLP concerns. That I did not do it when VPP raised the issue is a major dilemma; in the frequent interactions they initiate with me, they classify a vast number of my edits as BLP violations (including use of the phrase "flying saucer" instead of "unknown anomalous aerial phenomenon").
Ergo, I think an ideal way to end this would be if VPP could have each of their complaints meaningfully addressed. The status quo of our only interactions being VPP seemingly daily remonstrating me and threatening to subject me to punitive action is untenable. ANI is not an ideal place to do this but I have twice in this thread, as well as in other places, offered to pursue some kind of informal mediation w/VPP; in all cases my offers are ignored.

→In that spirit, I would gladly—as an unconventional proposal to resolve this—accept a community-mandated, third opinion* by an editor willing to materially review each of VPPs concerns so that clarity can be brought to us both and the community need no longer deal with this in plenary. (*3TO only addresses content disputes but I'm sure this can be informally handled in userspace by an editor with whom we're both comfortable.)

Chetsford (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC); edited 16:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The status quo of our only interactions being VPP daily remonstrating me and threatening to subject me to punitive action is untenable.

Show diffs where I do this daily, please. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That was auxesis. I'm sorry if it was not understood as such and have edited my statement to clarify. Chetsford (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

A rhetorical device whereby the subject matter is made greater, like overstatement, hyperbole. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I am happy for any DR, as I said, but I didn't start this thread. You did. You hijacked a draft DR document of mine from my user space that was hours old and in-progress, without consent linked an intermediary version of that draft work, and began this. It's not my thread. It's yours. I never asked you nor gave you permission to post on my "behalf" as you implied above. You unilaterally took my beginnings of WP:DR and put it on blast here as soon as I began to start sketching it out--which you had asked me several times to do.

I did what you asked, per policy, and you hand grenaded it.

As soon as the community is satisified with the BLP issues, I'm satisified, and happy to talk over things with an uninvolved editor we are both happy with. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

"As soon as the community is satisified with the BLP issues, I'm satisified, and happy to talk over things with an uninvolved editor we are both happy with." I do understand your position. This is why I suggest this be community-mandated for us to participate in, as opposed to voluntary. You've raised, I believe, eight separate issues and—after 20,000 words of text—we've addressed one. I merely offer this as an economical suggestion.
" You hijacked a draft DR document of mine from my user space that was hours old and in-progress" In interest of comity, I haven't brought it up prior to now but, for the record, this wasn't simply a draft you were working on for a short period of time (permitted as others have noted under POLEMIC). You were actively shopping it around; posting links to this "draft" in Talk space and pinging other editors (including Jimbo) to request they look at it. (for example [87]) Chetsford (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No, to your edit -- this is the problem. Please, please, for your sake, stop obfuscating. That is NOT the truthful timeline. Be honest.

• 2025-09-15T12:58 - I told you on RSN you did a BLP violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1311498720
• 2025-09-15T16:03~ - Over various edits you rejected what I said and I told you I'd start WP:DR.
• 2025-09-15T16:43 - I started User:Very Polite Person/DR/BLP issues based on that for WP:DR (as you'd asked me in the past).
• 2025-09-15T17:12 - you disclosed your BLP violations on BLPN: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=1311544224&oldid=1311537233
• 2025-09-15T17:15 - you came to my talk to tell me you took all this to BLPN: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVery_Polite_Person&diff=1311544796&oldid=1311309738
• 2025-09-15T17:21 - I replied to you on BLPN, again reiterated I hoped we could deal with this without DR and answered what you wrote with evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=1311544606
• 2025-09-15T17:22 - I notified involved Admin on their talk of your BLPN post: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn&diff=prev&oldid=1311545883
• 2025-09-15T22:21 - you self-reported your BLP violations (link) on WP:ANI, and linked (for unclear) reasons to a workspace draft of my DR that I had barely begun working on from 16:38 to 18:07 and was still working on. You alleged you were submitting on my behalf: I neither asked you for that or authorized it. For still unexplained reasons you linked to an hours-old incomplete version of my working draft notes for good measure, from 16:55, omitting without explanation (still) the next 6 revisions that added, that included more BLP violations.
• 2025-09-15T22:22 - you returned to my talk page to tell me I have been summoned to WP:ANI, and that is this thread here I'm replying to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVery_Polite_Person&diff=1311586244&oldid=1311544796
• 2025-09-15T23:03 - I informed that involved Admin of your ANI escalation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn&diff=next&oldid=1311545883
• 2025-09-15T23:04 - I pinged another previously involved and invoked user (I will not treat any user as 'special', none are): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=1311591808

I posted it to involved Talk pages as ANI protocol seems to dictate AFTER you posted to WP:ANI. How exactly did I "shop around" a discussion that didn't yet exist?

Any successful DR will be impossible unless you stop your incessant habit of trying to spin everything your way with made up WP:ASPERSIONS. Will you admit you are totally wrong on your claimed timeline? If not, prove mine above wrong. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

"Please, please, for your sake, stop obfuscating. That is NOT the truthful timeline. Be honest... I posted it to involved Talk pages as ANI protocol seems to dictate AFTER you posted to WP:ANI ... Any successful DR will be impossible unless you stop your incessant habit of trying to spin everything your way with made up WP:ASPERSIONS. Will you admit you are totally wrong on your claimed timeline?" You began publicly posting your tracking document and pinging editors to alert them of its existence at 17:21, 15 September 2025 [88]. I opened this thread exactly five hours later (22:21, 15 September 2025) [89]. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, in response to YOU. You've literally just said my timeline is the accurate one.

I tried man. Whatever BLP outcome you get is on you. Your allergy is admitting any error or letting anyting go is frankly hurting you. I will not reply to this thread again.

I have literally violated no policy on any damn thing since May as I was requested. You have have brawled and fought constantly with anyone who even slightly challenges you or does anything that may impact your image on here. I get it. You got fucked by lunatics outside this site. None of that--not one single breath of it--excuses any edits on here. Especially around BLPs.

No one made you insult BLPs. You chose that. Good luck. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

pinging other editors (including Jimbo) to request they look at it. this, in particular, is a WP:ASPERSION I insist you retract or be sanctioned. I never linked "Jimbo" that document. I linked your ANI thread. No AGF needed--this is a flat out lie. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmmmm. This is what my monitor is displaying when I read your 17:21, 15 September 2025 [90] post, which came five hours before this ANI [91]:

"I've begun compiling the OP's violations of BLP here ahead of (hopefully not) going toward dispute resolution or further if required. Please read. This is ongoing negative behavior and would be enough for any editor--any--to pick up warnings and escalating sanctions. User:Very Polite Person/DR/BLP issues They have been repeatedly chastised for this up to the level of Jimbo Wales [ping removed]. CC J_Milburn [ping removed]..."

Chetsford (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a very simple solution to all of this, and we can close this entire mess instantly:

Promise, on threat of topic ban from UFO stuff, to not insult BLPs related to UFOs anymore, with insults broadly defined. That's it.

I'll take the same sanction: insult a BPL, tban from topic. You agree? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

VPP it's getting frustrating how frequently you set down serious allegations, only to have those allegations disproven or at least shown to be exaggerated or very uncharitably presented, followed by you changing the subject. Can you please take your own accusations more seriously and not be so cavalier with throwing them around? GabberFlasted (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Let's just... go over the diffs from VPP's list one by one. Also, an important reminder because many of these are talk - WP:BLPTALK applies only to things that are unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices (emphasis mine.) There's some fuzziness if eg. someone is acting like something is related to making content choices but it's so clear-cut or absurd or clearly won't obtain consensus that it can no longer be considered relevant, but in general policy errs on the side of allowing people to make arguments using potentially harsh words as long as the argument is potentially pointing somewhere (which implies eg. at least a good-faith belief that valid sources might exist.)

• [92]: I guess this is being reported because it called Malmgren's claims whacky? I don't think that that's a BLP issue in the first place; it's talking about Malgren's claims, which are reasonable to discuss. Either way the whackiness or unwhackiness of Malgren's claims is clearly relevant to deletion discussions, since it is evidence of a potential WP:FRINGE perspective that has to be handled cautiously.
• [93]: Again, speculating that something is a WP:VANITY BLP is a reasonable thing to do in the context of making content choices. This is exactly the sort of thing that the sentence I quoted about WP:BLPTALK protects - people are allowed to make initially handwavy arguments on talk, which we would never allow in article space, provided there's a potential for it to lead to something solid.
• [94]: There is definitely a potential WP:SYNTH / WP:BLP issue in bringing up the fact that someone's grandfather may have been a Nazi without a source connecting it to them, but I don't think that it's so severe that it becomes a conduct issue. If you look at the discussion VPP started based on that, there were experienced editors arguing both sides (I would definitely lean towards exclusion, but, again, the discussion there makes it clear it's a reasonable content dispute and not a conduct issue) Also, that's the discussion that almost ended with a WP:BOOMERANG for VPP; surely they realized the discussion there doesn't support he idea that the addition was so wrong as to require sanctions. Multiple experienced editors there also said that it appeared that VPP was targeting Chetsford in an effort to get them topic-banned, rather than pursuing the content dispute normally; and while there was no consensus, the discussion was closed with what could reasonably be called an informal warning towards VPP.
• [95]: basically the same sort of argument as above (a source about the Mellon family used to far lot of text on Christopher Mellon; is this appropriate or not), though this time the source does at least minimally mention Christopher Mellon. Again, this is a content dispute. It may be WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE but it's not so glaring as to be a conduct issue.
• [96][97][98]: Describing someone as a "professor of flying saucers." Again, the upshot of all of this is that he's saying that they're WP:FRINGE, which is the sort of constructive criticism that WP:BLPTALK protects.
• [99]: This is the most recent one and has the most discussion. I'd tend to agree that this crosses the line; this goes beyond what could reasonably contribute constructively to article content decisions. But it is one comment, and Chetsford quickly struck it when someone objected.

The upshot of all of this is that I'm inclined to agree with the people in the previous discussion who said that it appeared VPP was abusing policy to try and get someone they disagree with removed from the topic area. Editors do need to be able to raise potential issues, and it's natural for someone deeply-involved in a topic area to sometimes misjudge what crosses the line into a conduct issue, so some leeway is required; but after the level of clear-cut backlash and criticism in the discussions above, you'd expect that VPP would show more caution, and especially not reuse some of the same diffs whose conclusion the last time they were discussed was nearly a topic-ban for VPP. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aquillion: As a regular at BLPN, I'd strongly disagree it's acceptable to call something a vanity BLP when your strongest evidence seems to be a photo which was later deleted given lack of evidence of proper permission. If you're going to do that, you need much more evidence and research. It might be acceptable to suggest there was a possible CoI involved in creation or development of the article based on the limited evidence since this does not accuse any particular person as a CoI article can easily be created with the subject having no knowledge or support of its creation.

But vanity explicitly accuses the subject of having a role in it's creation & is unacceptable with so little evidence and should lead to a BLP topic ban if it continues and I will go to ARE if necessary to get one. When I do raise possible CoI issues at BLPN or elsewhere I am very careful, as are most people I've seen at BLPN, to never accuse anyone particular of being behind that CoI unless there is specific evidence of who is behind it since a lot of the time we really cannot be sure who it is. We might have personal suspicious it's the subject themselves but there are still generally a lot of scenarios where it might not be the subject.

Also bringing up someone's grandparents views to try to discredit a living person with zero evidence that these views are shared by the subject is definitely enough to also cross into the line of topic ban worth BLP violation and many editors have agreed with this. It might not be enough as a single violation, but again if Chetsford does keep up with this crap, they can expect to be topic banned in the future perhaps from all living persons whatever good work they do.

I'd add that it's particularly important in the area Chetsford works in since many of the people are non public figures at at least very low profile individuals. I mean to state the obvious, when you say something is a vanity article, you're explicitly acknowledging they're low profile. While we sometimes turn a blind eye to nonsense about e.g. Trump or Biden which arguably does cross the BLP threshold, we have to be a lot stricter when it comes to non public figures or very low profile individuals. We should never be one of the few places on the internet where such nonsense about living persons goes on. And yeah this enabling Chetsford with their extremely poor BLP behaviour in the area is likely a reason whatever problems VPP may have in the area, any attempt to get them topic banned seems to keep failing.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you've taken to address these examples, but caution that looking at individual examples of violative behaviour must be balanced with looking at the totality of the evidence brought forward. Otherwise persistent patterns could get missed.

We must also be carefuly not to pay undue attention to "could have been" outcomes or "nearly missed" results in previous discussions like someone getting an informal warning of a topic ban that didn't end up happening. I'm not saying it's not helpful to recognize that, but we shouldn't dwell on possibilities versus what actually happened.

I don't see how this thread/ANI could be construed as VPP's abuse of policy when VPP did not instigate the present discussion here. It is also not fair to characterize Chetsford as "someone they [VPP] disagree with," since it has been established that they have agreed and voted similarly numerous times. Finally, based solely on the preceding conversation, it seems that the remedy VPP is seeking is not to have Chetsford "removed from the topic". Because this concern was brought preemptively by Chetsford, it is impossible to know what sort of remedies would have been sought had VPP been left to take action on their own. So I disagree with your upshot.

But here are my responses to your bullet points, FWIW:

1. "Whacky" is not a neutral term, meets the definition WP:SYNTH and seems out of place in an encyclopedia regarding tone. No adult uses the scale of "whackiness" to discuss controversial or speculative ideas in any serious matter. It's overly casual. I would advocate for its removal on any wikipedia article.
2. Working to connect a BLP to the Nazi party - even if indirectly - is very serious.
3. Calling an accredited theoretical physicist/mathematician a "professor of flying saucers" is a bit like calling an accredited botanist "a professor of daisies" to me. The argument Chetsford made very far above is that "flying saucers" is a perfectly acceptable term for the topic, but if you compare the term "flying saucers" to "UFOs" in Google trends, it is clear that "flying saucers" is not nearly as commonly used as the more general term "UFOs".[100] Flying saucers make up only a small part of the observations in the UFO topic, much like daisies only make up a small part of the subject of botany (with due apologies to daisy scholars). A quick glance at Dr. Zvozil's curriculum vitae and a google search both yielded no results for "Karl Zvozil 'Flying Saucers'", so it seems misleading to construe his work as solely focused on that term. He has written a book on UFOs, though. I have no idea if that book examines "flying saucers" specifically.

ArtesianAction (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You've made 31 edits total ever to Wikipedia, none in project-space, and the last time you edited before joining this discussion was in early July; what brings you here all of a sudden? 128.164.177.55 (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think they have a similar interest in flying saucers and their propagators ([101]) as VPP. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Very Polite Person

@Mackensen: asked for a one-paragraph summary above. Rather than replying to that comment, I'm breaking out a new subsection.

One paragraph is a tall order given how long this has been going on, but here's a summary of the last incident I'm aware of. There has been a long running dispute (both on-wiki and off of it) about whether Luis Elizondo was in charge of running a UFO-investigation program for the US government. The Pentagon itself has issued contradictory statements about this. VPP started a RSN thread about one of the sources involved. Early in the thread, they were explicity asked if this was 'more UFO stuff', and they answered No, which was clearly inaccurate. When called out on that, they doubled down initially and subsequently said [102] I'm just making sure we keep this on the appropriate level and don't let this devolve into yet another FRINGE UFO circus.. When asked if other sources disputed the 2017 Politico source they were asking about, they responded [103] I am unaware of any WP:RS that addresses that 2017 Politico article and it's statement there.. This is kinda-sorta correct if you parse it carefully, but highly misleading, as VPP was well aware of this 2019 source from the Intercept which directly contradicted Politico, since they had been discussing it on the article talk page. Similarly, at the following ANI they said that entire spectrum of "UFO stuff" they had edited was limited to two articles, a statement that was Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_102#Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act,_NPOV,_FRINGE_and_UNDUE obviously false.

This is the kind of WP:CPUSH that this user is engaging in whenever they brush up against the UFO topic area. This sort of clear misrepresentation of the facts is exhausting to the subset of the community that is willing to work on those sorts of articles, and VPP inherently disrupts the topic area because no one can accept anything in their comments at face value. - MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Every edit there is from May 2025 over forty minutes only, of a stressful argument. Nothing since.
2. Your linking to the Fringe Noticeboard there is my own post back in September 2024 asking for help on how to address an article's sourcing, which I still stand by the fact it was notable: it would have sailed through AfD. I let another user redirect it because I was simply tired of arguing. I have not hidden that either; it's been on my user page all along.

@MrOllie respectfully, you've simply put in here a summary of the complaints from some users on the May 2025 thread.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=2025-09-16&namespace=all&start=2025-05-16&tagfilter=&target=Very+Polite+Person&offset=&limit=50000

I was asked to chill out on arguing, and I have. The above URL is every edit since then. I think it is exceptionally reasonable to require @Mackensen's request be filled and covered by events after the Christopher Mellon incident, which was not my incident at all. I said I was not going to go near that horrible Luis Elizondo article, which itself was a BLP mess as I found it (I didn't realize you had edited it just preceding me back then), and I have not. My last edit was May 15. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in because I was the person who asked the "more UFO stuff" question. I want to start by saying that, outside of the question of UFO articles, I've had a very good collaborative relationship with both VPP and Chetsford and don't really have much to say about them that would be seen as negative. I do, however, have concerns, specifically about VPP (and to a lesser extent about Chetsford) regarding the UFO topic as it seems a flashpoint for both. The "more UFO stuff" discussion above is good for encapsulating my concerns about VPP - I would say MrOllie's description of the situation matches my interpretation there. But I've also some concerns that Chetsford often seems to ask whether a source would be useful for debunking UFOlogy before asking if the source is any good - for example they've repeatedly mentioned wanting a carve-out for the New York Post on the UFO topic and, considering how shoddy the New York Post has been of late, I'm adamantly against any carve-outs for any content from the GUNREL status of that publication regardless of whether or not one reporter might not be totally out to lunch. As I've said to others: if the material is important enough that it must be on Wikipedia a better source than the post will cover it.

I would suggest we'd likely get the best side of both of these otherwise excellent editors if they were to avoid the UFO topic. I'm less inclined toward an iban as they both do good, productive, work in BLP and AP2 articles unrelated to UFOs, often side-by-side. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

If I may, I am genuinely interested to know what issues there are specifically with my UFO-related edits since the entire Elizondo firestorm. My entire M.O. is just to find sources and add them. I've never had anyone (that I've noticed) override any edits of mine in that space at all since I left Elizondo. I haven't even touched Mellon since then either except two BLP questions on talk, despite my wanting to GA that article, and despite that I cold wrote that entire article from scratch. Chetsford afterward added 90% of the family background on top of what I made (and the BLP stuff aside, it was rock-star level research). All the deep military/US Congress research was all me. That's all I do with these--find sources, add sources.

Everyone keeps telling me since May: your UFO edits are "bad". No one can tell me why. Just my presence alone is a problem? I truly don't understand. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

If you're asking for harsh honesty it's that you seem to lose perspective on UFO related disputes such as saying that your Elizondo edits were unrelated to UFOs when they clearly were. Around the time of those edits especially, but in general, it seems like you end up in conflicts about UFOs pretty often and seem to have some trouble disengaging from them. As these frequently spill over to noticeboards I frequent such as WP:FRINGE/N, WP:RS/N and here I end up seeing quite a lot of them.

VPP I think you are a good editor. I also think you seem convinced that Wikipedia doesn't present UFOlogy neutrally. Being fair I feel the same way about certain topics - and generally, of late, I've tried to edit in those areas far less rather than get into repetitious fights that end in no consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that I got too upset too quickly before May. I think that's an easy and factual thing to say. I also believe that we treat the actual fringe theories fairly, but that we treat the surrounding people with pointless hostility and harshness--as if even the air of legitimacy is dangerous in some way. The theories aren't even interesting to me and not what I edit--I focus hard on the people, especially scientists and engineers, that try to approach it (example: Harley Rutledge).

But since May, until I called out BLP violations recently--no conflicts--none. I'm honestly asking what I have done wrong since May in the UFO space, since a number of people seem determined for me to not touch these articles. I honestly want to know what I've done wrong since May that has some people up in arms. I truly don't get it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You are now approaching ~5000 edits since mid-May so reviewing them all is not a simple task. As many people have pointed out, you are clearly more than capable of contributing positively to articles and to discussions. However, your contributions to UFO-related topics are tinged with a recognizable flavor. You also exhibit a troubling pattern of escalating disputes rather than quashing them.

• At Talk:Ancient Apocalypse#"Archeological racism", an editor starts a thread transparently asking for WP:FALSEBALANCE. Everyone else tells them this is flagrantly against policy but you stop just short of agreeing with them. If you understand DUE, you apply it at your own convenience.
• At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are Nick Pope books RS? you put quotation marks around your own uncharitable interpretation of Chetsford's comments and then threaten him with Arbcom. Dishonest, against AGF, and generally uncool.
• At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Svozil (2nd nomination) you change your !vote to keep because you object to the nominator. AfD is not the place to address these concerns; this to me is straightforwardly WP:POINTY.

Really though, this isn't about individual edits so much as repeatedly having the same conflicts on the same topics. I know your tenure is relatively short, but four whole months without being at ANI isn't something to brag about. The fact you find yourself having this discussion again is probably a signal to stop digging. Just $0.02 worth of free advice. —Rutebega (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions

To be clear, I'm currently neutral on all of these, but they keep getting bandied about above and, per Nil Einne above, it's better that someone actually propose them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Two other possible sanctions I was considering suggesting: A one-way IBAN for VPP; and a more narrowly-targeted restriction on VPP prohibiting them from making any sort of accusation against Chetsford, particularly regarding BLP, except at WP:AE or WP:RFAR (a "put up or shut up" restriction.) It seems to me that the crux of the issue is that VPP is convinced that Chetsford's behavior is worse than the evidence warrants and refuses to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this subject. Allowing them to take it to AE or RFAR is because I feel prohibiting someone from escalating / appealing isn't reasonable and because those venues are very capable of becoming WP:ROPE if they agree that the accusations are insufficient; it would at least get it out of everyone else's hair. But perhaps this is all a bit too bespoke and simple TBANs are all that are needed. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Where is the no Ban option? Just two editors warned to be more civil to each other and let's move on. Sgerbic (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You can oppose all three. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Very Polite Person TBANnned

Very Polite Person is indefinitely topic-banned from UFOs/UAPs and allegations of extraterrestrial contact with Earth, broadly construed, explicitly including people said to have experience or expertise with these.

18:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Regretful Support if that's the price of protecting these WP:BLP subjects. I would be appreciative if someone can finish taking Bruce Cathie, Christopher Mellon and Harley Rutledge through to finishing Wikipedia:Good Articles status. They should require virtually no extra work beyond some MOS tweaks on the latter two, and a tiny bit more on the Cathie. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  You should only support this if you think making a rule that you can't edit about a topic area, enforceable with a block, will protect BLP subjects. But is that really your thinking here? If you're trying to say something like "I am fine with being topic banned as long as Chetsford is too", I don't think that's how it works. The two sanction proposals will be evaluated separately. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  If my apparent presence is a factor in their attacking and insulting BLPs and brawling everyone, and the only way to make them stop is I get a topic ban too, then I'd be a dick to not support that outcome. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - the issue is not their behavior in the topic area, it's their behavior towards each other. Loki (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Loki.The issue seems to be their interactions towards each other not their behaviour in the topic area. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Loki that VPP's behavior is not confined to the topic area, but it was the original locus and is clearly a directing hand in their subsequent animus with Chetsford. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Loki, issue isn't confined to a topic. CNC (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Loki And CNC Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support. While the discussion above hasn't gone into depth on VPP's past issues, the TBAN discussion for them in the previous thread (the relevant section starts here) makes it clear that their issues are not actually confined to one editor; and the fact that they seem to have learned nothing from nearly being TBANed there makes it necessary here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose the topic area is basically incidental to the issue which is the interpersonal conflict. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning oppose At the very least, both sides are playing with unclean hands and sealioning each other. But VPP is explicitly following WP:POLEMIC exemption which makes the opening statement of this report completely invalid. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. An IBan is preferable for both parties right now and may resolve the issue while allowing both to work in the topic area. If further problems occur later we can always revisit this.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support I got pinged into this bloody discussion, and when I look at the OP, I see this collection of diffs by VPP is what started it all. VPP may be crying WP:BLP and saying they focus hard on people and couldn't care less about UFOs, etc. but every single diff is concerning a UFO specific or UFO-related article. Right here in this section they say they want someone to continue their work with Bruce Cathie, Christopher Mellon and Harley Rutledge - all BLPs of people who are aligned with fringe views about UFOs. We have been here before when they were nearly being TBANed. Let's not put off the inevitable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately. VPP has proven they can, and are, a valued and valuable contributor, both in articlespace and at ANI. But when it comes to this specific topic, they can't help but dig in their heels. They can, and do, make productive contributions to the encyclopedia in every other topic area, but in this one, they're a time-sink. Having them focus on only those other topic areas will be good for both them and for the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose While I don't always see eye-to-eye with VPP and have been giving a side-eye to their interest in the UFO articles, I think that VPP should not be topic banned, we can use editors that have interests in this area. I'm not happy with VPP making a list of complaints against Chetsford, I find that of going too far, once you have decided to look for problems with someone, you will find them even when they aren't really there. But I don't think a topic ban is necessary. Sgerbic (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Aquillion, LuckyLouie, The Bushranger, and yes, VPP. If VPP truly believes what they wrote here and here, they would likely gain much good will by voluntarily walking away, now, from UFOs/UAPs/extraterrestrials...and Chetsford. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per The Bushranger. VPP has proven to be a timesink in this topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 00:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I find VPP to be a valuable contributor in this area, and per their discussions here, able to self-reflect on working with collaborative intent. I do think it was a poor idea to keep the list of diffs, even if within the letter of Wikipedia rules, but it’s not worth a T-ban, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Learn and know better next time. If you are going to keep something like this, and I wouldn't recommend it, do it out of sight.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support I don't see the disruption ending otherwise. Even VPP supports this, acknowledging that the area is better without his fervent support of aliencruft. 14.33.34.133 (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support: The topic -- and VPP -- are better off with VPP not editing in this area. I expect that this is the simplest approach that will get the result that Wikipedia will get the best out of both VPP and Chetsford. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support Very Polite Person has shown in this very conversation that they are prone to tendentious editing in this particular topic area. The editor seems to believe that constant repetition of their points makes them more persuasive. It doesn't. The editor seems to think that they have a unique ability to detect BLP violations. They don't. Repeatedly protesting that they are not engaged in misconduct does not make their denials true. This editor and the encyclopedia would be better off if they concentrated on other areas of the project. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, provisionally. Wrong to punish someone for a draft documenting behavior that does include actual BLPvios. If there's other problematic behavior, let's deal with that in a standalone venue. Feoffer (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Feoffer. The editor VPP comes across as knowledgeable and therefore needed in the topic area. 5Q5|^✉ 14:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose VPP clearly has problems in the area however it does seem like they might have gotten at least a bit better since May. And this recent blowup & indeed some of the other bustups seem to have come from genuine BLPvios by Chetsford. While it's true that VPP doesn't have to be the only one to raise Chetsford's BLP violations I'm never going to ban someone for calling out another editor's BLP violations. Nil Einne (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Nil Einne, Feoffer and Loki. ArtesianAction (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, suggest trout I don't think this incident is sufficient for a sanction and I'm sensitive to VPP's point that they have tried to be less combative since May. However I understand those who have concerns and, while not on the fence, I'm pretty close to it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Chetsford TBANnned

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

---

Chetsford is indefinitely topic-banned from UFOs/UAPs and allegations of extraterrestrial contact with Earth, broadly construed, explicitly including people said to have experience or expertise with these.

18:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Regretful Support if that's the price of protecting these WP:BLP subjects. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  How is this not WP:POINTY behavior? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Chetsford's contributions in the topic area are mostly positive. I do think some of the things VPP has listed as evidence do cross the line, but others don't. If we were going for a topic ban a very narrow "UFO BLPs" topic ban is the max I'd even consider supporting here. Loki (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as unhelpful to the project more broadly. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• OpposePer Fortuna. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per fortuna Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, Chetsford should remain civil towards article subjects as they would other editors though. CNC (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Just greater thought given to civility towards article subjects would be nice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral At the very least, both sides are playing with unclean hands and sealioning each other. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Chetsford may need a {{trout}} for some of their commentary, but a tban is not an appropriate remedy, while - speaking cynically - also giving certain parties exactly what they want to boot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly Chetsford has done more work getting these long-forgotten articles in great shape than almost anyone, while his tone might be a bit sharp at times, I understand his frustration with the off-Wiki shenanigans and hate he receives. That has to take a toll on him. I do support a nice week-long vacation in a peaceful place with no Internet coverage so he can come back refreshed and ready to take on the rest of the articles.Sgerbic (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  his tone might be a bit sharp Please try not to 'enable' or minimize genuinely problematic behavior. It doesn't matter how good an article I write on Mormonism if I publicly mock the Mormon people in the process. We've got an admin displaying open animus against a particular minority, and it's generating a real loss of trust amongst the very communities we seek to inform. Obviously a TBAN is absurd, but there IS a real behavior problem here that needs to be addressed. Feoffer (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Not even close. Maybe a trout. A wee trout. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Chetsford is a benefit to the topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 00:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: A topic ban for VPP solves the problem. A topic ban for Chetsford leaves the topic in a worse place than it is now, so it would be purely punitive. Chetsford wouldn't receive a sainthood or anything, but the fact of being the receipient of a targeted harrassment campaign is a mitigating factor on less than impeccable behavior. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose because Chetsford is generally positive in the fringe UFO topic area. I would caution Chetsford against overly clever reliability assessments of statements by living people. Straying close to BLP violations is a bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bushranger, Loki, CNC, & PARAKANYAA. Just a trout: Everybody deserves respect. We never disparage people for their beliefs, we never edit to imply insanity. It is unsustainable for us to have an admin actively crusading against a particular worldview -- we need to be anthropologists who DOCUMENT cultures, not missionaries who assume our worldview is correct. Feoffer (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose but Chetsford needs to remember that whatever good work they do, it's not an excuse for BLP violations. Since this is the second time it's come to ANI they should consider that if it comes to ANI a third time we might not be so lenient. We can call out the horrific offsite attacks on Chetsford while recognising some of their actions have been unacceptable and are in no way excused by the horrific offsite attacks especially since many of the people they've BLPvioed don't seem to have anything to do with the offsite attacks & have done nothing to encourage them. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear on my last point. Even if you editors feel we can somewhat excuse Chetsford for letting the frustrations over how they been attacked offsite get the better of them so they sometimes take it out and make BLP violations regarding the people who are attacking them or have encouraged or enabled them, it should hopefully be obvious that it's not okay for Chetsford to take it out on or lash out at people who are uninvolved in the attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Neutral, but agree that a narrower "UFO BLPs" topic ban may be more appropriate, as Chetsford's use of subjective language and occasionally combattive or dismissive tone in interacting with other wikieditors is likely to lead to more conflicts on this particular topic. ArtesianAction (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, suggest trout I don't think sanctions are appropriate here beyond the logged warning already given by SFR. But mutual trout seems in order. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
• (moved) Wikipedia Censor Chetsfard could get banned! : r/ufo, there are users getting canvassed here, comments include one guy saying he has a "contact" in the "vote", and another saying they'd voted. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Consider moving this comment up to the Chetsford tban section. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Very Polite Person and Chetsford IBANned

Very Polite Person and Chetsford are made subject to an indefinite 2-way interaction ban.

18:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I will adhere to the will of the community in this, as in all things. I would just note there is already virtually no interaction in Talk space being initiated from me toward VPP. [104] And I'm happy to continue my existing modus operandi of not initiating contact with VPP; no IBAN required. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Regretful Support if that's the price of protecting these WP:BLP subjects. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Reading this thread and seeing the older one has convinced me this is what's actually necessary here. From what I can see the evidence mostly points towards a mutual and entrenched WP:BATTLEGROUND between these two editors specifically. For what it's worth I'd also oppose any 1-sided IBAN here, since in addition to being very skeptical of those to begin with I think the bad behavior here is very much two-sided. Loki (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per mentioned above. Seems to be two editors who just aren't getting along having blown up out of all proportion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as far as interaction goes, I stand by [105] and [106]. The problematic interaction is far more personalised by VPP than Chetsford (exemplified by the latest page of diffs, regardless of how old it is/was). —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The problems are nearly entirely one-sided; it makes no sense to place a restriction on Chetsford. --Aquillion (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Chetsford's opening of this thread, when VPP was actually following the correct procedure for preparing evidence per WP:POLEMIC, and other clear evidence of their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards VPP, shows that the problems between these editors are far from one-sided. It's clear that these two can't work together at the moment so it's better if they keep apart from each other. Beyond that it seems they both contribute usefully so TBANs unnecessary at this stage.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support Probably the least damaging approach to separate the two sides without resorting to TBANs. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support This will cause the least damage and should hopefully solve all the issues. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per OhanaUnited's reasoning. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Surprisingly perhaps, but if VPP is tbanned, that would seem to me to resolve the issue without needing an interaction ban on top of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this discussion should be a warning to each other (and others watching) to find ways of getting along. Sgerbic (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per the spot-on analyses of Fortuna imperatrix mundi, Aquillion, and The Bushranger. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per JoJo Anthrax et al. Taking Chetsford out of the equation would do nothing to remedy VPP's blind spot with UFO related BLP's, and we will be back here again before too long. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, very much per Aquillion and LuckyLouie. I would only support a 1-way ban on VPP. TarnishedPath^talk 00:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The Bushranger has it right on this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I think we all just need to assume good faith and do better going forward. VPP didn't post at ANI, Chetsford isn't really bringing any huge complain about VPP. Everybody just needs to be WAY more civil, remember it's not a battleground, and even try Writing for the opponent. Feoffer (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Feoffer. ArtesianAction (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is only a tiny part of the problem. As I noted above VPP clearly has wider problems in the area, perhaps they've gotten better but they need to be careful they continue to improve and never slide back. Chetsford may do good work & may have been subject to unacceptable offsite attacks but this in no way excuses their BLP violations. There's nothing wrong with VPP calling out Chetsford for their unacceptable BLP violations & if Chetsford doesn't take on board being called out for BLPviolations because it comes from VPP that's on them not on VPP whatever the problems with VPP's behaviour elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This would not be to the benefit of the project and would likely just create more drama. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

administrator attention regarding User:Nigel Ish - disruptive editing and repeated reverts

Nigel Ish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I request administrator attention regarding User:Nigel Ish for a pattern of disruptive editing and repeated reverts across multiple articles. The behaviour is not a one-off, but a series of actions that have caused edit warring and unnecessary disruption to article development. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• MiG-29 in Yugoslavia, claiming a reliable source is “unreliable”, and reverting or challenging sourced material rather than raising a clear, verifiable sourcing concern. Evidence
• No. 1 Squadron RAF, asserting removal or challenge of material about aircraft serial numbers for Falklands reinforcements, without providing a specific rationale for removal.
• Aftermath of the Falklands War, asserting that a cited source is inaccurate without engaging with the citation, then reverting edits.
• BAE Systems Hawk, pushing edits that appear to lack neutrality, while dismissing concerns about impartiality.
• HMS Glasgow (D88), reverting an edit purportedly because images should be added automatically by Wikidata, rather than discussing the matter on the article talk page or providing a clear explanation.

The pattern is: repeated reverts, failure to engage on talk pages, assertions that citations are unreliable without substantiation, and POV or disruptive re-editing rather than working towards consensus. I have attempted to address these on the relevant talk pages, but the behaviour has continued. I request that an administrator review the user’s recent edits and interactions, and consider mediation or other appropriate action. Please see the user talk page BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the behaviour complained about. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger It seems that Nigel Ish removed a commons category template that BiscuitsBeforeBias added, and that rather than starting a discussion to try to resolve the content dispute BiscuitsBeforeBias has started this thread to try to get them blocked.

Most of the claims here are based on comments by other users have just been pulled from Nigel Ish's talk page. The first one "MiG-29 in Yugoslavia" refers to User talk:Nigel Ish#MiG-29 in Yougoslavia and the complaint raised here seems to be baseless. The source being discussed is a one person wordpress website written by a train driver that is obviously unreliable. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

BiscuitsBeforeBias, please read the documentation in the info box on the right. When you post a complaint, you need to provide diffs, and when you notify an editor, you need to give them a link. These are prerequisites. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get anybody banned, I requested "administrator attention" to reduce the amount of unnecessary reverts of resourced work — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk • contribs)

Take a moment, sign your post, and then re-read what I wrote. I'm not suggesting you're trying to get somebody banned. I'm explaining how to properly present a concern so that it will be addressed, rather then turn into a WP:BOOMERANG. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It was the anon who said BiscuitsBeforeBias has started this thread to try to get [Nigel Ish] blocked, albeit BBB's (lack of) indentation doesn't make that clear. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The MiG-29 discussion was a result (I think) of [this] post to another editor's talk page, questioning a reference, and [this] tagging of an unreliable source.

The 1 Squadron RAF discussion was about this removal of information sourced to the "War Thunder Wiki" and to unverifiable primary sources (RAF No. 1 Squadron ferry flight log entry, 1 June 1982). Video game websites are clearly not in any way reliable sources. The information was also undue for the article, but the sourcing was not acceptable.

On Aftermath of the Falklands War I restored a cn tag (originally added by someone else) which had been removed without providing a citation [107] and then tagged a reference as failing verification because it didn't seem to back up what was being sourced to it, and the reference detail presented was confusing (the reference title was completely different to the source that was linked -so it wasn't clear which one was meant - a 1975 report cannot be used to talk about something that happened in 1982.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

HMS Glasgow D88– I added the missing Commons link, which was reverted with the comment that “Commons links are handled automatically by Wikidata”. There is nothing inherently wrong with adding it manually, so why is this treated as an error?

In the “Aftermath of the Falklands War” section: I cited Rick Jolly’s book to show how lessons from gunshot wounds in Northern Ireland were applied to the Falklands. This was reverted as a “failed citation” because of a misreading – the passage clearly states that three Argentine soldiers died at Ajax Bay, not British, 1975 to 1982 is relevant & British troops were being treated for Gunshot wounds in NI till February 1997

On RAF 1 Squadron aircraft serial numbers: these are provided for tracking purposes, and these particular aircraft had notable wartime & post-war histories, making the detail relevant.

On sourcing: video game websites are often dismissed out of hand, yet many are based on solid research, sometimes with input from veterans, and can be more reliable than some of the uncritical material that passes as “quality”.

I'm reaching the point of giving up editing. Critique is fine, but the constant reversions without constructive suggestions are dispiriting. Would it not be better to help improve contributions rather than deter editors who are trying to add relevant material? Or when I give up would this be a victory for you?BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@BiscuitsBeforeBias Sorry to be slightly blunt with you here, but this really reads like you are making newbie mistakes. To me it looks like you need to be asking questions at the teahouse, rather than trying to get other editors sanctioned.

You cannot possibly use a source from 1975 to support claims about what was going on in 1983 - the book cannot possibly contain that information. Using a book from 1975 and doing your own interpretation of what the future implications of it's contents are is original research, the prohibition of this is a fundamental Wikipedia policy. If you want to state "lessons learned during the troubles helped during the Falklands conflict" you need a source that explicitly states that - you cannot use a source written the troubles and decide that what it says applied to later conflicts.

The Fandom wiki for the warthunder video game is completely unreliable source and cannot be used for any information at all. At its most fundamental a reliable source should have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - a user generated wiki written by anonymous contributors cannot possibly meet this standard. You can read the perennial sources entry for fandom at WP:FANDOM, which contains links to some of the previous discussions about this website. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not OR – The Falklands war: Army field surgical experience - PMC. The document itself makes the comparison between the Falklands & NI. The revert was unnecessary. The text clearly states "No British serviceman who reached a medical aid station subsequently died", & the source confirms three fatalities, but those were Argentines.

I am not trying to get anyone sanctioned, but adding CN tags or reverting someone’s work without considering the context just pushes editors away. If that is how it is going to be, fine, leave it - consider it a Big Win 💥 BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk)

BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The source which you linked (which is not the same source which you provided bibliogrphic data for which was "A military surgical team in Belfast") appears not to say that three Argentine troops and no British troops died after reaching a medical aid station - it states that three died (of unspecified nationality) in the summary on page 281 and gives details of these deaths (again without nationality) in Table V on page 284. It doesn't make the claimed link to the fitness of the troops (discussion section pp. 284 to 285) - and suggests one reason for the the survival rate at the surgical stations is that delays getting the wounded to treatment meant that the more seriously injured died on the way "It is likely, therefore, that some of the more seriously injured died before evacuation was possible thus paradoxically improving our survival figures at the surgical centres" (p. 285). I tagged with failed verification because the source did not back up what was claimed from it, and it wasn't clear which source was actually being quoted. Note that I did not revert (although arguably I should have done) but only tagged the reference.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Content disputes between BEN917 and 2A02:2149:8B9F:700:2495:EA87:2D48:878A

Hi everyone! I'm starting a new ANI discussion because of an issue that has come to my attention. I was reviewing active requests at WP:RFPP when I saw this request. Apparently, the article that page protection was requested on (Eleftheroupoli F.C.) makes the second one that's being affected by disputes between BEN917 and 2A02:2149:8B9F:700:2495:EA87:2D48:878A, with the first article being Tryfon Tzanetis - which Isabelle Belato had to fully protect a few days ago because of them. It's naturally quite concerning to me to hear that multiple articles are being affected by disputes between these two editors, and I'm starting this ANI discussion to have the community review the situation and collectively decide what the next step should be to handle this (if applicable). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

As I said in my reply at the request of the IP user, I didn't any unnecessary edits as the IP user claimed, which I proved to him and eventually he understood that. Morever the IP user never went to reach me to talk to me about the issue, or ask for any guidance/question, since he is an inexperienced editor. He didn't even made a curtecy tag in the request (which I saw by chance), despite metioning my name. He persisted in his view, even calling me names. The edits on the article of Tryfon Tzanetis were not a rejection the additionsof the IP user, but a correct classification of them, which he was not able to comprehend due to his inexperience with the platform. I think he understood that as well and the issue was also set. About the article of Eletheroupoli, the IP user claimed that the flags of the footballers have to do with their heritage and not with the nation they represent, which is obviously wrong. To his defense he did accusse me for other minor issues that if proven it would be indeed my mistake, which I probably did as I was trying to help. For any needed clarification, I'm here to provide it. BEN917 09:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to take part in the discussion but apparently User BEN917 keeps lying to everyone.

To begin with, I didn't insult you. I mentioned that your insistence on making this edit is a joke. This is a phrase, not an insult. You keep saying that I've been calling you names (show us one swearword except the it's a joke end of my sentence, prove your accusations). That's a lie. Why should I seek your advice? Who are you? Did you have the courtesy to talk to me about the changes you made on the Eleftheroupoli FC article before you made them? After all, you are the one who started changing the content without asking anything on the talk page, not me (Don't say that I have accepted your edits of my own free will. I did so after your many reverts. I didn't want to keep undoing them; it was either your edit or nothing.). How do you know I am an inexperienced editor? You keep saying it over and over again. Do you know me? I have been editing on Wikipedia much longer than you, just for the record (As a user or IP, one and the same with edits). False impressions and low perception, sorry but that's the case here.

Now as about your edits, reverts etc (That you didn't make, haha). You keep saying the same lies. Your edits and deletions in the articles.

A) The reference to Stelios Skevofilakas was removed from the Eleftheroupoli FC article due to its association with derogatory remarks he made regarding the former AEK Athens head coach, Stankovic, during an interview (This was properly sourced). I guess you didn't like it.

B) You maintain that senior teams are categorized as youth teams in the Tryfon Tzanetis article, despite the fact that the sources indicate otherwise. Your claim posits that these teams qualify as youth teams since they engaged in competition within an independent league. Guess what: he played first team football at a young age, simple as that (This was properly sourced). Do you even think about what you are saying?

C) You removed the Kleanthis Askaridis player from the Eleftheroupoli FC article and the corresponding reference. Guess what: the player joined the club whether you like or not (This was properly sourced).

D) You altered the flags to fit your misleading narrative. Individuals of Greek descent born within the Ottoman Empire are known as Ottoman Greeks or Ottomans of Greek heritage. The players Magiras, Tzanetis and Markopoulos are all born in the other side of the sea under the Ottoman Empire flag. To illustrate, individuals born in the United States to Greek parents are referred to as American Greeks. The American flag is going first and yes they are still Greek in the genes. They are called homogeneous here in Greece, and they belong to the same race/family (This was properly sourced). Perhaps you live on another planet. P.S. Nationalism is not a good thing.

E) You keep altering the sequence of the references (e.g., language to lang, moving the title to another position, removing the publisher who can be either an online one, an actual entity or both etc.). These references that you change to "clean up" as you say are not added word to word but by the automated system of Wikipedia.

F) I can go on forever.

Bye for now. 2A02:2149:8B9F:700:7538:B619:B3F:BF27 (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

P.S. The flags serve not only to represent the national teams the players played for but also to indicate their nationality and citizenship. You might want to check other Wikipedia entries such as AEK BC or the List of Olympiacos F.C. players, among others. 2A02:2149:8B9F:700:7538:B619:B3F:BF27 (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

P.S.2. Regarding the Tryfon Tzanetis matter, I'll provide two examples: one related to youth players participating in the first team of clubs still deemed first-tier, and another that involves a specific age group and a club competing at the amateur level. Messi made his debut for Barcelona's first team when he was just 17 years old. Barcelona was regarded as a top-tier club, even with a young player on the first team, and Messi was seen as part of the first team lineup. Another example, and likely a more accurate one, is that AEK Athens played in the Gamma Ethniki (the third tier in Greece) during the 2013-14 football season. During that season, the Gamma Ethniki was regarded as an amateur league. Should we include AEK Athens FC as a youth team in the articles of all players who took part in that league at the time, such as 17-year-old Tryfon Kazviropoulos or 26-year-old Miguel Ángel Cordero? I now want to take a minute and quote your user page message: "I'm a football fan and I created this account to improve football articles, as best as I can. I proceed on improving articles only if I'm sure about it and having checked the appropriate sources. I do not let my personal opinion influence my editing view when I improve Wikipedia articles." Therefore, based on this, you should adhere to the sources. Isn't it ironic that you don't see it, but you're trying to impose your own perspective without following the sources? This phenomenon is referred to as hypocrisy. 2A02:2149:8B9F:700:A5DD:2A9C:6BB5:A0E9 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

To answer the allegations of the IP user. You didn't call my edits a joke, you called me a joke as a person and with your statement you are indirectly calling me a liar a hypocrite and a nationalist, so you have insulted me more than once. Even if you are editing on wikipedia longer than me, which cannot be proven, that is on your expense because you seem not to be familiar of the wikipedia policies. In this case: You added content (and good one in my opinion), I made some alterations to fit to a sportsman article. There you should heve reached me and ask why did I make these alterations, but you didn't. You started reverting my alterations and you were barely civil about this with comments like "...I can do this all day", "You're a joke.", without ever attaking to you. You even proposed in my blocking without even letting me know. You also seem to be unaware of the Project Football. So even if you speek the truth about your wikipedia presence, my point is still valid. I never hid once about who I am. Nevertheless, my intention was never to remove any of your content, just to help you and fit it correctly in the articles. You might don't see that, but I am actually on your side. If I removed anything (Skevofilakas and Askaridis cases), it was propably a mistake by me going back and forth the editions of the article. About the flag even for the examples you mentioned yourself if you look to the dual nationality players you will see that the prime nationality goes first and then the second and without "-" connecting the two flags. It is not a pronunciation thing, they are Greek internationals, thus the Greek flag goes first. That is confirmed by The Bushranger which mentioned WP:MOSFLAG that you should also should be aware off. I'll give you sometime to fix the flags issue, so you can see that I got nothing against your content. About Tzanetis, be sure that I saw your sources, as I work in the same manner as you, but you have to understand that an underage player who plays in the local leagues (4th division or lower) belongs to the player's youth career and that doesn't necessarily means that those teams are youth teams (except the reserve team of AEK, which it is). Also you can bare in mind that all Greek clubs before 1979 were amateur and despite that on the contrary occastion, many adult footballers are sent to youth teams of their clubs and play some matches, especially, when they are sidelined. That does not mean that the terms in these clubs will be put in the young section of the table. Conclusively, I'd advise you (do not take it as an indication), that we are all here because we are trying to improve wikipedia, so try not to see enemies everywhere.

Thank you for hearing. BEN917 10:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Same old, same old. I quote: You didn't call my edits a joke, you called me a joke as a person and with your statement you are indirectly calling me a liar a hypocrite and a nationalist, so you have insulted me more than once.. I didn't claim you're a nationalist; what I said is that nationalism is harmful, and your action of prioritizing the Greek flag for individuals born during the Ottoman Empire, which encompassed 77 different nationalities all recognized as Ottomans, exemplifies this. You insist on the flag issue; they weren't born in Greece, simple as that. You obviously cannot understand it. I didn't label you a hypocrite; I pointed out that your user page statement contradicts your actions, and that's what hypocrisy means. I articulate my actions clearly, and these are the only ones to which I assign names. The claim about lying is accurate because I believe you're intentionally doing certain things. I didn't suggest merely blocking you; I stated, and I'll quote myself: Would it be possible for you to undo the modifications, ensure the protection of the article, or implement a temporary suspension for him as you see fit?. Thus, it's not a blocking measure at first, but it functions as a definitive solution for your reversions. Now, who is attempting once more to enforce his personal perspective, and I quote you again: I'll give you sometime to fix the flags issue, so you can see that I got nothing against your content. This mate sounds like "do it or I'll do it"—there is no room for debate with. That's why I am saying all these things. I provide you with sound reasoning and explanations for my changes, but it seems you are uninterested. Don't try to convince me about the opposite. I quote: If I removed anything (Skevofilakas and Askaridis cases), it was propably a mistake by me going back and forth the editions of the article. Lie. I answered about the Tzanetis issue already. You aren't adhering to the sources, which is evident from what you've said, and I quote: ...but you have to understand that an underage player who plays in the local leagues (4th division or lower) belongs to the player's youth career and that doesn't necessarily means that those teams are youth teams (except the reserve team of AEK, which it is. The Wikipedia template provides youth teams and senior teams sections for some reason. You keep supporting your view and not the references. This is a personal view. Apparently, you do not care. Yes, we are, but apparently not all in the same way. 2A02:2149:8B9F:700:C8F0:A72:FE91:20F4 (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, you mentioned I am calling you names (plural form). I quote you: He persisted in his view, even calling me names. I then inquired about the other names I used for you besides the one that included the phrase "you are a joke." I quote myself: You keep saying that I've been calling you names (show us one swearword except the it's a joke end of my sentence, prove your accusations). You didn't demonstrate any in your last response. In contrast, you referred to "liar," "hypocrisy," and "nationalist" as if they were curse words. In this scenario, those were brought up long after your original accusation of me using derogatory terms towards you. You relied on information from a later part of this conversation to back up a false claim that you made earlier. So, are you telling the truth or lying? 2A02:2149:8B9F:700:C8F0:A72:FE91:20F4 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I will not answer to the insults (and not swears/curses) issue. I'm only gonna say that the temporary suspsension for me that you proposed means blocking me from editing for an short period of time. A wikipedian should be aware of those matters. In the flags issue first you said that it's a pronunciation thing and then a birthplace thing, but it's none. The nationality of a sportsman in wikipedia and many other platform depends mainly from the country that they represent. Since those footballers played for Greece, their nationality is Greek, wherever they were born, same as Zeca, José Holebas, Vasilis Hatzipanagis, Pavlos Papaioannou, Daniel Batista, Apostolos Nikolaidis (Greece), Urko Pardo, Siniša Gogić (Cyprus), Michael Olise, Brice Samba, Eduardo Camavinga (France) and hundreds of others. And if you read the MOS:FLAG it clearly states "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or their representative nationality.". I never prioritised the Greek flag over others for the sake of nationalism or anything that fits to your allegations for me. Moreover in the List of Olympiacos F.C. players (Even Panathinaikos players) that you yourself stated, it can be noticed in the "Key" section that players with dual nationalities have the flag of the coutry they represent first and then the country they were born. And by all means in any article the flag icons are not separeted ever by the dash symbol, that you persist in restoring. I told you to fix it yourself so you can do it yourself, with your own way without me intervening with your added content. Finally, about Tzanetis I told you that I saw the sources they proved he indeed played at the clubs you added and that's as far as it goes. But since he played for them during his youth years they belong in the youth section his career. How that is contradicting with those sources? I can show you on the contrary occasion many examples of adult fooballers with official games with youth teams (Fernando Torres at 29 y.o. with Chelsea U21 2013-14 season), which by your logic would be classified in their youth career which as you will notice, is not. Regards! BEN917 09:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG may be relevant here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:HOAX by User:ImrannGhazi

User:ImrannGhazi has added a "sources" section [108] to Talk:Chenab Valley where they have added a list of five sources, with page number references and even quotes, but none of these sources or scholars actually exist: the entire list is fake and likely AI-generated, and is textbook WP:HOAX. (The first source does not exist; the second source does not exist; the third source (claimed to be published by Routledge!) does not exist; the fourth source (claimed to be published in EPW) does not exist; the fifth source (claimed to be published by Orient BlackSwan) does not exist). The user is accusing me of POV-pushing based on these fake sources [109]. Trying to push a view with fake quotes from sources created out of thin air! This is highly disruptive. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the sources from talk page but that doesn't mean your POV is right on the topic. This user UnpetitproleX is pushing the POV of particular political party. He's adding only biased sources which favours his POV. There are various neutral sources already in original version of that article but this user keeps editing the whole article to favour the ideology of a particular political party which is very distrubing ImrannGhazi (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

If you cannot find legitimate sources for your POV - then have you stopped to consider that your POV is wrong?--v/r - TP 20:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is suitable for WP:ANI for now, because this is not yet a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. And, GPTZero says that his "sources" are %100 AI generated. Also, why would you notify him about this discussion so late? Jako96 (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to say I warned him about this. Jako96 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Are they real or fake? I think this is the only thing that matters, not whether the cite templates were "AI generated". jp×g🗯️ 20:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I looked up one of them. No results found for "The Chenab Valley: Identity, Marginality and Resistance". If these sources are literally just falsified, I would support (or be willing to execute) an indefinite block for ImrannGhazi — it's just completely unacceptable to fraudulently make up sources to win an argument. jp×g🗯️ 20:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG: The sources are fake. They do not exist. The quotes attributed to them also do not exist. The scholars purported to have written those sources in that particular field also do not exist. Also, @Jako96: I apologize for the 20-minute delay in notifying the user, but I don't think it is fair to call that "so late." They were notified before this discussion received any comments from any user. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Agree that this was not suitable for ANI, given how UnpetitproleX never attempted to resolve the issue with the editor before coming to ANI, however, the behavior of UnpetitproleX has been really poor on this article so far. He has been edit warring against multiple editors on main Chenab Valley and is also falsifying sources as clear from this comment. Orientls (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  None of the sources I have mentioned are falsified. Here are the links for each one of them: Kumar 2023, Cambridge University Press; Motwani and Sharma 2020, Bloomsbury; Chowdhary 2016, Routledge; Wani 2016, Routledge, Behera 2006, Brookings and Behera 2000, Manohar. The comment also does not show any real evidence of any misrepresentation either, instead it reads more like a repetition of my summary of the sources (it literally admits, for instance, the existence of a political controversy and that each source addresses said controversy in different ways). There is no way you are trying to equate that with literally adding made-up quotes from fake made-up sources that User:ImrannGhazi did. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  UnpetitproleX never attempted to resolve the issue with the editor before coming to ANI. What about Talk:Chenab Valley#August 2025? UnpetitproleX and ImrannGhazi have been discussing this for almost a month. As for UnpetitproleX falsifying sources at Talk:Chenab Valley#Sources, I'm no expert but UnpetitproleX's source analysis looks correct to me, at least at a glance. Meanwhile, Romit Parihar's rebuttal was "100% AI generated" per gptzero.me. Other services gave AI-generated confidences of 77%, 96%, 100%, and 100%—a strong indication that their rebuttal is meaningless. I even spot checked one of their points and Google books couldn't find a keyword on any of the given pages. Woodroar (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• I note that ImrannGhazi also created South Kashmir recently, an article on which every single reference appears not to exist (apart from a couple of references to the Indian census, which doesn't seem to cite what it claims to anyway). A set of more knowledgeable eyes on that would be useful. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Did a cursory analysis of some sources on that article. The Indian Express: doesn't exist at url and does not return any results on google search (without title in quotation marks, with title in quotation marks, in 'News' section); The Hindu: not at url; and doesn't appear to get search results (without, with, in 'News' section); Greater Kashmir: neither at url, nor google search results (with, without & in 'News'). UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Speedied under G15 by ComplexRational. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 04:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - The problematic behaviour on part of OP is certainly worth taking a look into as well. For example: Restoring a 2020 version of an article and misrepresenting the comment of another editor [110][111], and still continuing to do that when the editor had provided clarification. Before this the editor had been edit warring to insert a POV version of lead in the article for which no content existed on body. [112][113][114][115][116][117] [118] Note that the version they were to reverting to was added by them in 2024 itself and without consensus. This is in addition to their disruption at Pajeet where they have repeatedly edit warred to restore their preferred version of lead which again fails WP:LEAD[119][120] and repeatedly assumed bad faith and made personal attacks on editors at the talkpage such as here where the OP is accusing editors that they "promote racist POVs", and has refused to strike the false allegation.[121] Wareon (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  The article has a longstanding sock-farm problem (see this SPI archive for reference; the sock has previously also attempted to mockingly impersonate me because I have been removing the unsourced WP:OR that the sock has created over a long period of time). Confirmed socks related to the sock-master have appeared at the article from time to time, and the sock is also likely using WP:MEAT, IP and VPNs etc (but not any of the users on the the talk page discussion currently or here, I should clarify). As for the slur article, its usage by western far-right groups for South Asians in general and reappropriation by certain South Asians against other South Asians is well attested in sources (see Talk:Pajeet#Sources). As I clarified there: seeking to remove all mentions of the slur's usage by white supremacists and other western far-right groups and privilege only the reappropriation or narrower usage is definitely a problematic POV (I have now struck 'racist', but I do believe that such a summary removal of mentions of the slur's wider usage by white supremacists is highly problematic). I have detested from editing the leads of both those articles and am instead now compiling the highest quality reliable sources available on the talk pages and raising issues there. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked ImrannGhazi from articlespace until they come back here and explain their multiple AI creations of content with fake citations. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

IP continues to accuse other user of vandalizing

2A00:23C8:4380:3D01:0:0:0:0/64, who was blocked from edit warring yesterday, continues to accuse Cambial Yellowing of vandalizing Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom) on their talk page, yet Cambial Yellowing's edits were not vandalism. Thus indicating the IP is clearly making false statements about the user, please notify them on their talk page about this. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you meant Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom), which was fully protected by Oshwah. The dispute is still going on talk pages though. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified both users. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @SuperPianoMan9167. Looking at the date on of this, it appears to fall prior to the current discussion (which commenced today, 17th). I have chosen not to engage with the individual any further, so I presume that this can be resolved (?) 2A00:23C8:4380:3D01:AC34:D0BC:EE71:C6B8 (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The edit war was/is about the capitalization of a phrase in the article, which is a designated contentious topic. 2A00, I notified you of this on your talk page. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - seeing it now. 2A00:23C8:4380:3D01:B083:F772:784F:8D7D (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought they called a truce on this. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Broad WP:PERSONALATTACK

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

---

[122] is a broad WP:PERSONALATTACK. I attempted to warn the editor of this on their talk page after which an IP (who is clearly them) replied almost instantly with this: [123]. This shows this editor has no regard for WP:PERSONALATTACK as a policy. Electricmemory (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) 133.218.147.14 (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

133… blocked as VPNGate proxy. No judgement at present on Beorhast. Also, you must notify the editor who you are reporting. That’s clearly stated on this page. Please do it now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that Electricmemory did notify Beorhast. Woodroar (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it is a stretch to call this a personal attack. The comments are not directed at an individual, and express frustration with the people recommending to delete. It's an opinion, not an attack. I don't agree with what the editor is doing, and I'm quite concerned about the attitude expressed by the IP with this, but there's no action to take here. We're not going to block for this. It's worth monitoring, but it's not blockable. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The comments are not directed at an individual, and express frustration with the people recommending to delete is a bizarre self-contradiction: making personal attacks broadly at a group of people doesn't mean you aren't attacking the individuals, it means you're attacking many individuals all at once. The idea that The push to delete this article is clearly driven by bias is not a personal attack because it is "expressing frustration" is likewise bizarre; surely a great many personal attacks arise as expressions of frustration. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. However, even if it was, it is an isolated incident that would not be considered an urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem. There's nothing actionable here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, your disagreement is obviously just a result of your personal bias, and you would do well to keep it in check. BTW how do you feel about signing talk-page messages with fake usernames? 128.164.177.55 (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, not taking the bait. This noticeboard is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". That hasn't been demonstrated here. Unless you can demonstrate a long pattern of abuse with diffs to support it, this isn't going anywhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh it seems you also think it's a good idea to call other contributors "disruptive, agenda-driven, or disturbed" because they disagree with you -- always good to see administrators setting a good example. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I have now had an opportunity to review the edits by both the IP and @Beorhast. I concur with @Hammersoft: less than ideal and Beorhast should watch their combatitiveness: it is not constructive here, but not actionable currently (other than to provide corrective guidance). Registered users editing logged out is not a good thing, but the connection between the two accounts was very clear with no attempt to mislead (but using a VPN is usually against Wikipedia policy). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Burlakov and Burlakov case

I'm raising this as a chronic problem. It involves two articles, Burlakov case and Oleg Burlakov, and two editors, Ssr and MarcusEllington90. I summarised the situation at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive370#Burlakov_case. It's also been discussed previously there Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive352#Oleg_Burlakov, and it's cropped up here too Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Burlakov_case_and_Oleg_Burlakov_multiple_rules_violation

MarcusEllington90 and Ssr have a slow-moving edit war alternately proposing merger of the two articles (ME90) and removing the merge tag (Ssr).[Oleg Burlakov: Revision history - Wikipedia I am very much involved; I consider that the Burlakov case article looks like an attack page full of trivia whose sourcing I cannot convince myself is reliable. I therefore think ME90 has a point. ME90 has a declared COI, but I feel Ssr is simply stonewalling their point of view, and ignoring discussions until they get archived. Since no one else apparently has any interest in the articles whatsoever, the situation is a slow-motion car-crash. I don't think Ssr should be removing a merge proposal tag (three times) when ME90 has correctly started a merge proposal (Talk:Oleg_Burlakov#Merge proposal), and I've advertised the proposal at BLP noticeboard. It should be removed by someone independent, after the proposal's discussion has been properly closed, and the closer shouldn't be Ssr, ME90 (or me); given the conflict, it needs to be someone independent.

Help! I can't fix this. There's some dubious behaviour here, and a dubious article, and the whole thing is a bit of a mess. Elemimele (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Holy tabloid clickbait, Batman! 128.164.177.55 (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Ssr, I would like to hear from you on a few things:

1. Why are you removing the merge proposal tag?
2. In the past couple years, at both involved articles, I'm seeing multiple rollbacks that don't appear justified. Can you explain?
3. I'm not seeing much engagement from you at the article talk pages. Are you explaining your edits somewhere else?

Thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Note that Ssr often goes a few days between edits. I don't see a reason we can't wait a while for a response. I've added a "do not archive" template to keep the bots away for 10 days at least. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Borges777

Borges777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I recently have disagreement with Borges777 on List of active Brazilian military aircraft, and I have attempted to discuss the issue on that article's talk page. However in his last edit on that article he made personal attacks against me. He also posted a similar personal attack on my talk page.

I kindly request that an administrator review this behavior. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

(Not an admin). I would suggest this disgusting message also need addressing [124]. Knitsey (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

That deserves an immediate escort to the nearest exit. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Diffs: [125], [126], [127]. Northern Moonlight 17:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf, I went ahead and reverted the message on your talk page. It looks like they have been blocked for a couple of days. I would suggest that if they continue after the block, post here or contact an admin. Knitsey (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No judgment on the blocking administrator's block, but if it were me I would have blocked indefinitely pending some sort of assurance they would never violate WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL again. These sorts of attacks are highly reflective of the person making them, not the person against whom they are targeted. Such behavior is completely incompatible with this community. I've issued Borges777 a final warning indicating the next block would be indefinite. This will end, either through them complying with policy or being shown the door. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for responding and handling this. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Hammersoft. This editor was very fortunate to have escaped an indefinite block for their behavior that Knitsey correctly described as disgusting. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

AfD vandalism and harassment

I request admin oversight / intervention regarding repeated hoax-tagging, vandalism, and vile accusations of bad faith directed at me personally during the Transgender extremism AfD. I believe these actions violate WP:AGF and the AfD process. I ask for review and appropriate corrective action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morellet1 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I was in the process of reporting Morellet1 but I see that they have saved me the trouble. I think we need an indef here. Here is what I was about to post as a separate report:

• Morellet1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Morellet1 is engaging in transphobic propaganda and trolling, seemingly using an LLM. They have made a disgusting hoax article at Transgender extremism. This was cleaned up a bit and then blanked. The version before that was just astonishing in its POV. They have trolled the resulting AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transgender extremism. They deny using an LLM but the fake references speak otherwise. Their previous edits have been pretty trivial. I don't see what they are bringing to the project except trouble. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 to @DanielRigal's request for a WP:BOOMERANG on @Morellet1. The original version of the article was also LLM generated, hallucinated sources and all. They are currently engaged in attempted WP:CPUSHing at the AFD, they seem to be here to push POV and not to build an encyclopedia. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 to WP:BOOMERANG, I have run out of any good faith for this editor. Funcrunch (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The current AFD is turning a bit heated, and the editor who filed this ANI is behaving very poorly: [128]. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You might want to edit this comment as it was morellet1 who filed this ani, not DanielRigal. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have linked the wrong comment, unless you're confused about who filed this topic. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Oops, right you are, my apologies. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there a good reason you're working on the same article under discussion in your sandbox? Funcrunch (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO, the article is not a good candidate for AFD, and I will work to get it to a shape where it wont be a candidate for deletion at a later date. I've been finding a fair number of high quality academic sources in peer reviewed journals on this subject and assuming its deleted (which it will most likely be), I'd like to salvage whats there for future use. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: see the report I just filed for the answer to that question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked Morellet1 indefinitely for their undisclosed use of a large language model to generate an article (Transgender extremism) and post comments within the gender and sexuality contentious topic (WP:CT/GG). The block may only be appealed through WP:CTOPAPPEALS until 17 September 2026, and may be appealed as a standard administrative block afterward. — Newslinger talk 19:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Newslinger You may also want to look at User:MasterBlasterofBarterTown here, who amongst other things has created a copy of the transphobic article in their userspace and has been edit-warring on Annunciation Catholic Church shooting, including this. I am not going to take admin action as I have edited the ACC shooting article to remove transphobic material [129], using an edit-summary which interestingly this editor then copied completely to post misleading material in a completely different article [130]. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

See the report I just filed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

MasterBlasterofBarterTown's edit history covers additional topic areas and I don't immediately see something like undisclosed LLM use, so it's going to take a while for me to review the content edits because I haven't been following certain news topics as closely as many of the editors working on these articles. I recommend commenting in the section MjolnirPants opened to establish consensus for an action.​ — Newslinger talk 20:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

User seems to be here solely to push an agenda

MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be here solely to push their political agenda. There's edit warring with a 24 hour block already. Pretty much all of their edits display the same ideological roots, even those which are facially acceptable, such as !voting to keep an AI generated hot mess of an article alleging the existence of 'transgender extremism'.

Some diffs

• [131]
• [132]
• [133]
• [134]
• [135]
• [136]

Talk:Talia Lavin#repeated removal of cited material contains comments which have been revdelled and they have had their comments edited to remove slurs.

Basically, their entire edit history is this stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I've imposed a topic ban from American politics post-1992, without prejudice against broader sanctions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

re: broader sanctions, the downplaying edit to Francisco Franco is very concerning Iostn (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The redacted bits from Talk:Talia Lavin are troubling as well. They make me think a topic ban might not be enough. But, perhaps with this ban in place, they'll decide WP isn't worth it and save an admin the trouble. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

What happened at Talia Lavin Trade (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, because much of it was revdelled. But it's clear from a read that the editor was using slurs or offensively derrogotory terms for a BLP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, this editor. Yeah, I've run across them on a few different pages. Seems like they're just here to POV push some pretty extreme politics. I wasn't aware of the edits to Francisco Franco. If this is extending outside AP2 then I'd suggest an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE is the appropriate course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest it regardless given these sorts of comments[137][138][139]

Just seems to be another account only really here to push a political POV and then accuse other editors in general of being in on some kind of collective coverup/distortion that caused Kirk to be killed. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Their disruptive comments predate the whole Charlie Kirk thing. I would call them a net-negative to the project in general. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?

"All references to XYZ's trademark must be removed" [140] I don't want to get into an editwar with this individual, since they just reverted me [141]. Help? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It certainly seems to imply a COI. DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No, not directly. I've left a message for them at Talk:Aurora nuclear reactor. We'll see how they handle things moving forward. I agree there's a potential for COI. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree it's skirting the edge of NLT, but it's vague enough not to qualify. The COI, of course, is another matter. Ravenswing 19:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I am still unsure what the user actually wants Trade (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

User might be on the hook for UPE though. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. There's already a UPE notice on their talk page. No edits since it was placed though. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

They're not the only Aurora-branded organization out there and the organization is Canadian, so they should probably be reminded of that. Nathannah • 📮 16:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Plus the fact that the Philistines were almost certainly Canadian [142], so they should probably be reminded of that too. EEng 03:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Canada has several Aurora branded things including the Aurora Awards and Aurora Cannabis in addition to the company Nathannah mentioned. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Danners430 and zealous enforcement of WP:V by repeated blanket reversions

When does robust defence of WP:V turn into disruption, tendentious and uncollegial editing to trample over other editors?

Re: Danners430 (talk · contribs) This is a long-standing issue, but today it's in reference particularly to British Rail Class 45, here and here.

For the backstory of the term 'extant', see here: Talk:LMS_Hughes_Crab#13159 “extant”

All the editing I ever see from Danners430 is the same pattern: bulk reversions of content on railway articles, justified by it being either unsourced, or not sourced to a standard that Danners430 sees as acceptable. They have no leeway over this, no facility for compromise. AGF is nowhere to be seen. Most of these edits are justified: this lack of sourcing is a problem, especially in the field of adding the latest 'news' to railway preservation articles. It's a good question as to how much of this we should be carrying at all, but that's a different matter. But this isn't an ANI post about what Danners430 is doing, so much as how. WP does have a few near-absolute rules (if rarely enforced) and WP:V is one of them. But are they going too far? Is it right to rollback a large edit on the basis that "Flick isn't WP:RS", when the edit was "Gordon Highlander has now been painted purple" and the photo shows it has indeed.[143] Very often these don't even involve WP:RS, they're about WP:PRIMARY, which is a different issue.

In today's example, it's bulk rollback on challenges to two sources. Except that there are three sources. Is the third being excluded because it's primary? Which is not anything that WP:PRIMARY requires (it's one member of a list that forms a sub-section of a broad article). Or because the website (and entire preservation project) is down? Yet they're now claiming that it's "still preserved" (unsourced at all), because they won't accept anything saying that it's now abandoned.

This is not about the article today, it's a behavioural issue and a long-running one. We have to preserve WP:V, but also we have to work with other editors, and this seems to be going well against it. Particularly when it's directed against new editors. More established editors have raised this before, User talk:Danners430/Archive 4#Sourced information, but when their response is to be so dismissive and then insta-archive it out of sight, that's stretching AGF an awful lot.

@WaterDuck8 5741: and @The Banner: as also involved here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I will say I'm rather taken aback that this has suddenly come to ANI, when at its core this is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill dispute about sourcing... surely this would have been handled better by starting a talk page discussion... which by the way hasn't even been attempted? Andy, you talk about WP:AGF... how is dragging someone to ANI without even an attempt at discussion assuming good faith?

If we must do this... Flickr is an image hosting website. There isn't a thing about it that fails WP:UGC. WNXX, the other source in those edits, was discussed previously at WP:RSN and there was little good that was said about the site, and most agreed it was likely user generated too. I will almost always (unless it's an IPv6 editor, when it's almost always pointless due to the dynamic nature of these IPs) leave a welcome notice or level 1 notice on the user's talk page informing them what has happened, and often add a note further explaining why they were reverted. In this case I'm not sure why I didn't after the first reversion - no explanation there.

As for the linked archived discussion... what pray tell is wrong about archiving discussions that have ended? The other editor is currently blocked so is unable to respond anyway... I believe I am perfectly entitled to archive messages. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No, this is not "nothing more than a run-of-the-mill dispute about sourcing", don't try to derail it into one.

Read your talk: page. How many separate, independent editors are on there, making just the same point about your reversions, over and over. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, it rather is a content dispute. Sorry. Especially when you haven't even made an attempt at discussing the dispute at any sort of forum before dragging it to ANI...

Just a quick look at my talk page yields two discussions which were closed out through discussion (something I note you haven't done) either on that talk page or elsewhere, one discussion which I still find bizarre from an editor that i had never interacted with before complaining about being reverted (which I hadn't done - a quick look at their contributions will show that... I have no clue where they popped up from), and one notice about edit warring from a user not following WP:BRD.

A look through my archives shows a lot of people complaining about being reverted... but what is it you want me to do here? Stop reverting users that add unsourced content? Stop removing non-reliable sources? Are you advocating for an unsourced Wikipedia, or what is your "goal" here? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

bulk reversions of content on railway articles, justified by it being either unsourced, Removal of unsourced content is entirely within policy. WP:V: Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.. 'Removal of content claimed to be improperly sourced' may or may not be an issue, and if it is an issue, it's a valid one to bring here. But combining that with removal of unsourced material is not a good thing to do, as it waters down the entire argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: The Banner is currently blocked until 9 October. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning here that much of the information I added to the Class 45's page was stuff copied directly from a previous version, and all of it is correct. The WNXX source could easily be removed if it was an issue, and several different people on Flickr and Facebook have confirmed that 45015 is indeed still at Shackerstone. Given how it is a noteworthy member of the class with a very noteworthy story, it should at least have some mention on the page like it used to. WaterDuck8 5741 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No comment on WNXX, but several different people on Flickr and Facebook is WP:UGC and/or straight-up WP:OR and thus is not acceptable as a reliable source on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Facebook not acceptable? Well, unless Danners430 is the one using it, that is.

They want to have it both ways. Dogmatic absolutist enforcement on anyone else's edits, but they don't hold their own to the same standard. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Does YouTube count as WP:UGC? Because I have a video showing the same thing. WaterDuck8 5741 (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:, Facebook pages that are of an organization, as Danners430 used in the link you provided, ARE acceptable as primary sources. Facebooks of fan groups and individuals are WP:UGC. @WaterDuck8 5741:, the same applies to YouTube - if it is posted by an official account of an organization (in this case, the museum that holds the locomotive?) would be a primary source and thus appropriate for stating simple facts, such as "locomotive X exists at Y". If it is posted by an indvididual, it is UGC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, so the Nene Valley's FB page is acceptable. Then why are they removing the 45015 association's website? I don't much care which way they want to call it, but they seem to be flipping around as to what they will accept, and the common factor is which WP editor is posting it, more than who's in control of the content. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd take a guess and say that it might be because the Nene Valley Railway Facebook page is still up and running, with clear indication of who they are and in what capacity they are publishing their content, while the 45015 association's page is dead, the only archived pages from the domain are incredibly bare, and there is effectively no mention of the 45015 Association or the 45015 Fund anywhere except Wikipedia.

Given that anyone can purchase and use a .org.uk domain, combined with the fact that the website is completely dead with no way of establishing who actually ran it and in what capacity, I absolutely agree with removing information attributed to it under WP:V. As above _{so below} 23:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The locomotive is not owned by a museum, it's just dumped on a heritage siding. Additionally, the only sources I have are social media (YouTube, Flickr, Facebook) postings that prove it's there. I might not be the person to add it but I do think 45015's current status should be represented on this site. WaterDuck8 5741 (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

WaterDuck8, 45015's current status should be represented on this site only to the extent that reliable sources discuss that status, and those sources are cited. Until so, the content should stay out. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I know that this may not be related to the railways thing but there is this issue about Danners340 that I am concerned and I want to raise here,on many airports articles this user has been reverting edits made by others that removes air routes that are no longer operational because the routes removed are sourced and the editors that remove them did not add a source in the edit summary, these edits are not adding information but are removing information (or by some definitions updating), which unlike adding information, doesn't make sense to require a source because you're removing the information, the sources are outdated, the editors that removes these routes have most often stated that these routes are no longer operational which Danners340 reverts with edit summaries similar to "Removing sourced content" (I would understand why if the edits removing them has a empty edit summary so I won't get into it), I'm also concerned that this user may sometimes revert these edits even when the source (or the article itself) has stated the routes are ended, like this edit [144] which reverted my edit removing a route that stated it ended 5 days prior to the edit which he restored with the misleading edit summary "Unexplained removal" per here [145], there are also other edits of him bringing back routes that are no longer operational like [146] and [147], there are more edits similar to this he has made which you can find in his contributions list in the last 1 month, I have also noticed that this user has sometimes reverted similar edits that has a edit summary with "Unexplained removal" and not even about "removing sourced information". Despite these cases however, I would suggest not to get into his edits that remove unsourced additions or real unexplained edits, and I would say that this user is not a vandal.

Metrosfan (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

There have been a few times recently where I made mistakes when reverting such edits - I've acknowledged these, and learnt from said mistakes. I do now double check that there isn't already a sourced note saying the route is due to end. However, if that's not there then it is a verifiability issue. If a route is on a route table, and there's a source stating the route has started, we can't just remove that content - the source is valid, and unless there's a "counter-source" which states the route has (or will definitely) ended, then removing it because it has apparently ceased is original research. Just because you know something to be true doesn't make it verifiable.

On the flipside, perhaps this is a matter for a bigger discussion - as you say, almost every source used for routes only state that a route is about to start or has started... there's no finality or currency. It also, in my view, flies (no pun intended) very close to WP:NOTTRAVEL. However, that's a discussion for another forum - likely an RfC at WT:WikiProject Airports or WT:WikiProject Airlines. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

User Stickerers

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

I have concerns that Stickerers may be a paid editor using LLM edits purely to promote an individual here on Wikipedia. They have made zero edits not related to the individual (SPA), and have continually tried to push drafts that they wrote using LLM through AFC, even though most show no signs of passing notability concerns (one time, re-submitting a draft after it had been denied without even making any changes besides swapping one source with an equally non-RS other). They were templated about COI by another user and then I asked them 3 times what their relationship with the individual is, but they have only ignored the question and continued with their edits, or commented on my own editing instead of answering the question.

Further evidence:

• Thier first two edits were to add a table of redlinks to Susana de Sousa Dias, including 2 entries that were unsourced and not even mentioned in the body of the article.
• Their next edit (now revdel'd for copyvio, can't provide diff) created Draft:48 which included ChatGPT as the source in the URL of one of the refs.
• The next day, ChatGPT shows up in refs in two more drafts. That day, creating 4 drafts that they submitted to AFC within a minute of creation.
• Three days later, with no edits between, they came back to resubmit one draft that had been denied, and add a link from Susana de Sousa Dias to one draft that was accepted.
• Yesterday was the above-mentioned resubmitting a draft without making any improvements since the last AFC denial.
• They have made zero edits not related to Susana de Sousa Dias' films, after adding her new film (unsourced) to a table and then later adding the statement that it is preparing to premiere in November.
• They have used blogs and calendars or event websites announcing a film was shown at a film festival as reliable sources to pass notability concerns, and stood behind those sources in talk page comments while acting like WP:IDHT and claiming WP:FINDSOURCESFORME ([148]).

Overall, it is rather suspicious, and since they have blatantly ignored my COI concerns and now turned tendentious, I was hoping someone with a hammer mop could get the answers we need. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Adolphus79, without assessing the merits of your complaint (which at first glance seems compelling), I would like you to rephrase your last sentence there. Admins typically work with a mop and through dialogue, not a hammer and we especially don't go after new editors with hammers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

My apologies to the mopped ones. The sentiment was that of discussion and/or behind the scenes work, not hammering a new user. Someone with more tools than I might be able to get the answers needed. It has been a while since I have written a report that long and complicated, I guess I got sloppy with my choice of words at the end there... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi ANI community, I'm a new user at Wikipedia and Adolphus79 seems to be questioning, reverting and deleting every edit I do. I'd love for a third independent reviewer to check my additions as my intention is to add relevant and notable information to the Project - my references are reliable and independent and all the information added can be confirmed by anyone who wishes to do so. As is the case of many, many films present in Wikipedia, I too am using reliable publications such as: Harvard Film Archive, IMDB, Variety, Official Film Festival Websites, Official Government Data, etc. Thank you for your attention to this matter :) Stickerers (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

And not a single word about the COI or LLM concerns... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Independent verification will be able to check that none of my drafts have LLM or bias. Stickerers (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Stickerers, what is your relationship to or connection with Susana de Sousa Dias? Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Stickerers I am independent of this dispute and based on two diffs linked above I can verify that a large language model was used, specifically ChatGPT. The claim that "none of my drafts have LLM" appears to be false. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

...odd... IP behaviour

2601:703:201:3840:2487:606A:759A:5D2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2601:703:201:3840:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It might be legitmate editing and I might be a dumbass, but this IP and a couple others (IP range, I think?) has been doing really odd edits in essay space for the last couple days. I've reverted the edits I initially came across at the essay no queerphobia for now, but they've also been going around slapping a contentious essay template on a bunch of stuff varying from reasonable to somewhat odd. IDK, just smells like socks in here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

PS: How do I notify an IP? should I? --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Same as you would a logged in user; at their user talk page. Please do so :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

copy that --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Added the /64 userlinks as well, as obviously related. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm a little late replying to this, but you can look at the Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Killing of Charlie Kirk requested move panel closure request

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Killing of Charlie Kirk requested move panel closure request

 – —Locke Cole • t • c 23:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

(Implied) legal threat?

• 2405:6E00:62D:A46A:1133:6171:6508:47D5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is a lot of counter arguments that Tyler is innocent and he should be able to sue the contributors here for liable and slander.

Do this count or am i overreacting? --Trade (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider bringing back semi protection. I dont know if having IP's and SPA's comment is a net positive for us Trade (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat, btu it is entirely inappropriate. Blocked the /64 for 31 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

While you're here as an admin, can you please tell me what do "/64" and "/48" mean for IPs? Thanks! Jako96 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96, It appears a lot for anti-vandalism things here, but they're basically a range of the IP. It gets rid of a vandal persisting in a certain range (area), but also can shut out useful IP contributions from the area as well (if there are any). To be honest though, technical questions probably belong in quora or something else that's definitely not ANI. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

When you are on the contributions page for an IP address, add "/64" or "/48" at the end of the URL and what you get is the contributions page that includes all edits on a broader IP range containing that address (the number following the / determines how broad, smaller is broader). For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.164.177.55 is my contributions page, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.164.177.55/20 is the contributions page for a broader range of editors (and includes some edits like [149] and [150] by people other than me). For IP6 addresses (the long ones that often start 2xyz), the /64 is a small range that usually includes only a single person; for IP4 addresses (like mine) /32 is just a single IP address. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

As I thought, thanks to both of you. And yes, I probably shouldn't have asked this in ANI, you're right. Jako96 (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Basically, when you're blocking an IPv6 address, it's all but invariably advised to block the /64 range, as (as noted) IPv6 /64 ranges (and sometimes even broader!) are usually assigned to a single individual (or at least their house), and the dynamic switching between addresses in that range happens a lot faster than IPv4s. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

ICANN gives whole IP blocks to organizations such as ISPs. The ISPs then suballocate IP addresses from these blocks for individual customers, and in case of IPv6 addresses, give the whole /64 block (or wider) simply because of the sheer number of addresses you have (2^128). This allows for each individual device in a local network to get a unique address on the internet, making P2P connections much easier.

To make it easier to address these blocks, we use CIDR notation, which indicates the number of significant bits of an IP address. For example, 2400:1:2:3:4:5:6:7/64 means that only the first 64 bits of the address are significant (i.e. 2400:1:2:3), and the rest can basically be any value. The addresses 2400:1:2:3:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF and 2400:1:2:3:0:0:0:0 are both in the 2400:1:2:3:4:5:6:7/64 range, since the first 64 bits are the same. This also applies to IPv4 addresses, with 128.164.177.55/16 meaning 128.164.*.*, etc. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

This is helpful to read. I was working with an IP editor who was harrassing someone else but jumping around accounts and I wasn't sure how broad the range should be. Unfortunately, I didn't keep track of the number of different IPs because they'd use one and then go to another. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, persistent battleground / hostile behaviours of User:BeatrixGodard

First time filing an ANI request. Request topic ban on political articles against User:BeatrixGodard for battleground behaviours, frequently not WP:AGF, frequent accusations against other (frequently seasoned) editors, repeated violations of WP:NPA even after warnings, potentially violating Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, and generally just WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.

1 / Battleground, not AGF, accusations. I've summarized said user's accusations (and the diffs) against other editors in this reply already. I'll copy-paste my reply here.

> "You are going to have to be more specific, because I'm not sure, given the context, what you could mean by your edit-summary"

It's interesting that you can be unsure about someone's edit-summary when sometimes you can be extremely sure that others' are trying to be misleading, misrepresenting things, be implying something, then go on to take such perceived implication as fact, saying things that are irrelevant (even accusing people of lying) with it - all the time saying others being incompetent to read a full 30 pages of historical document, while asking others to tell you which part of the long document they provided should be read by yourself.

While also failing to get the point. If you read the criticism to your addition of content, it should be clear that your cited secondary sources failed the notability guidelines, instead of the pages of the original document or any other details.

And achieving the admirable feat of doing all of the above in mere 50 edits.

I'm going to say that you're probably not here to build an encyclopedia.

Note: here's an additional link showing BeatrixGodard accusing yet another editor of inadequately justifying their revert. All the links above are what I can find in their last 50 edits, out of a total of ~250 edits since the account's creation this spring.

2 / Maybe violating WP:Sockpuppetery

It's really strange to see an editor with 250 edits immediately starting this much discussions and having such proficiency with Wikitext formatting, all the while being such familiar with WikiEN's policies. While WP:AGF requires me to assume the editor's editing w/ IP before, or this account is a legitimate alt, I'm still strongly suspicious. I'd like to request a Checkuser against said user.

3 / WP:NOTHERE, WP:CANTHEARYOU

All the editors' edits to main space are (almost without exception,) reverted AND with at least one or two talk page discussions talking about their additions. The concensus is more often than not, stacked against the editor.

Here are some of the talk pages attempting to resolve the disputes:

Talk:Absolute (philosophy)#Use by US Government researchers

User talk:Veverve#The Absolute

Talk:Leo Frank#Klan

Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel#Heine and Hegel's possibly apocryphal last words

User talk:BeatrixGodard#2025 Palm Spring fertility clinic bombing

Talk:Antinatalism#Related crimes

Talk:2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing#Repeated removal of antinatalism, "anti-pro-life" from motives

Edit: The user’s reply is Ad hominem, and nothing else. Updated 13:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC) diff

Cheers everyone. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I applaud the incredible speed with which @IrisChronomia has put this compendium together since first interacting with me five days ago. This will take more time than I currently have to rebut, but just for starters:

One of the supposed crimes listed above is that I am responsible for: saying others [sic] being incompetent to read a full 30 pages of historical document.

This is patently false. I suggested that she perhaps lacked competence because she criticized my source for being only one page long. The source was 29 pages long. She said that she got it confused with the archive of that page, which she said was only one page long. It was also 29 pages long. Anyone who wishes to can go to the talk-page and see what I really said for themselves.

I could go on, but I think this is pretty indicative of the general sort of thing I've been dealing with here. If I have to litigate each and every edit I've ever made, I'd be less than happy to, but until then, I think that's a pretty good microcosm. BeatrixGodard (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You obviously have more than enough time to write many wall-of-text replies, as most edits you made are beyond the +1000 mark.

Ad hominem is not a defense. Blanket accusing someone of incompetence for getting the page-count wrong out of a very long critique is quite a microcosm of your general attitude so far. Please address the rest of the critique - you can skip the 30-page thing. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

btw, just figured out the page confusion: viewing the wayback machine link on an iphone shows only one page. the pdf is indeed 29 pages long.

again, accusing anyone of incompetence (for imo, a really lame factual error) is a violation of NPA. judging from the fact that you’ve already been reminded of such rules, repeatedly, with warnings, your choice of language seems to be quite egregious here. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I am making an ANI request against the same user, so I'm going to leave another reply within this discussion thread.

User:BeatrixGodard has made repeated violations of the WP:AGF policy against me, even though I've warned them to stop each time. My first encounter with this editor was when they wrote a reply to me on Talk:2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing on 22:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC).

BeatrixGodard first accused me of lying a few replies later on that talk page, after I told them that they should read discussions before commenting, per WP:READ. Godard accused me of lying twice on Talk:Antinatalism, just because they could not find the context for a 1-minute video clip inside the video's description, and because they could not understand what the video's subject was saying.

After these accusations, I left a template message on User talk:BeatrixGodard where I warned not to violate WP:AGF again. BeatrixGodard replied by asking me where they violated the policy and acting as if they never violated AGF at all.

Despite my warnings and user talk page message, BeatrixGodard violated WP:AGF a fourth time on Talk:Antinatalism when they said "Why are you not telling the truth?" In this case, I was trying to explain to Godard that Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting came to a consensus over many archived discussions that any source which references Adam Lanza's supposed YouTube channel is less reliable than the official investigation and other government reports, which don't say anything about a YouTube channel at all, much less how antinatalism could've been a motive for Lanza's shootings. This point is even explained in Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting FAQs Q10, which makes me doubt if BeatrixGodard read the talk page that I referenced in my explanation for why claims that Lanza was antinatalist cannot be stated in Wikipedia articles.

While the violations of WP:AGF have been my main problem with this user, I've noticed multiple other problems with their behavior. BeatrixGodard did not read the whole discussion on Talk:2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing#Repeated removal of antinatalism, "anti-pro-life" from motives before leaving their first comment on it. BeatrixGodard announced that they read the entire discussion in their second comment, which strongly implies that they did not read the discussion before making their first comment.

When I confronted BeatrixGodard on this matter, BeatrixGodard told me that I should "consider changing [my] username". I wonder if this violates WP:PA.

I would also note that BeatrixGodard made snarky replies against Indiana6724 and Doug Weller on User talk:BeatrixGodard. The way BeatrixGodard replies to other people's comments also seems to suggest that they want to focus on minor unimportant things, rather than talking about the main issue at hand and seeking consensus. In general, whenever BeatrixGodard disagrees with someone, it seems that they always try to make their replies as rude as they can possibly be, without being openly vulgar.

It also seems that BeatrixGodard lacks the necessary competence for understanding implicature within the English language, which is problematic, per WP:CIR. BeatrixGodard was unaware that their own comment strongly implied that they did not read before commenting on a discussion. BeatrixGodard was unable to interpret how an Efilist YouTuber expressed support for wild animal breeding programs. BeatrixGodard acted as if their sentence "Why are you not telling the truth?" did not violate WP:AGF, even though it does.

Finally, BeatrixGodard just violated WP:3RR when they reverted my edits on Antinatalism 4 times within just 2 hours.

With all that said, I don't believe that BeatrixGodard has the required competence to edit Wikipedia or interact with other Wikipedia editors, per WP:CIR. I would like something to be done to address BeatrixGodard's conduct. Thank you for reading my comments and for your attention to this matter. Zero Contradictions (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. See this odd discussion when I gave her a standart Twinkle warning.[151] Doug Weller talk 10:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. All of my discussions with this user have been weirdly passive aggressive. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BeatrixGodard#2025_Palm_Spring_fertility_clinic_bombing Indiana6724 (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I have come across BeatrixGodard in the past because we share an interest in articles about political extremism. I've also cautioned them on avoiding personal attacks and speculating about the identity of editors. [152]. I will say that, on the underlying content dispute, I think they're correct.There appears to be a little bit of WP:RGW coming from editors who want to distinguish between an ideology and its most extreme iterations but, due to the fringe nature of the beliefs involved, there is a paucity of reliable sources and the best has been presented is a youtube video by a figure who might (but who has not adequately been shown to be) an expert sufficient for WP:EXPERTSPS. However I'm ultimately unsurprised they've ended up here - I did, in fact, caution them that I'd be the one bringing the case here if they kept up their behaviour.

I do want to also address suspicions of sockpuppetry mentioned at the top as I'm the one who opened the WP:SPI ticket into BeatrixGodard [153]. This was ultimately archived with no action. As such, despite my original suspicions, I don't think, pending new evidence from the checkusers and admins who participated there, this should be considered within this discussion.

There is definitely a legitimate civility concern here. I'm not sure it rises to the level of WP:CIR, especially as they are a very new editor, but some form of corrective action is likely required to impress upon BeatrixGodard that whether right or wrong they must avoid insulting fellow editors. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about when you cited WP:RGW. About an hour ago, I left a reply to you on that talk page where I cited some sources that were relevant to the discussion that we were having, so the youtube video is not "the best [that] has been presented" in that discussion. Anyway, I edited 2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing to make the edit that you, Squatch347, myself, and others agreed upon, so I don't think there is anything more to discuss regarding the contentions there, as they should be resolved.

Thanks for letting us know about the SPI ticket that you opened months ago.

I am aware that BeatrixGodard seems to be a new editor, but I think that WP:CIR is still potentially applicable here. BeatrixGodard has broken multiple rules, including but not limited to WP:3RR, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. They still chose to violate AGF, even after being warned multiple times. Zero Contradictions (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think our discussion on the article page today resolves the content dispute angle of this. I wrote that statement before reading your responses and will strike. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

As a summary of @Zero Contradictions' WP:3RR violation comment, the diffs are here (1/2/3/4, in 1 hr 40 mins).

Also a near miss of 4 reverts in 72 hours from Sep9-11: (1/2/3/4, in 53 hrs). 海盐沙冰 (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted to the last stable version on Antinatalism, but full protection might be warranted. @Doug Weller, are you too involved to take such an action or is it fine for you to do so? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 13:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Simpler just to block her if she continues to edit war there. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Doug Weller. I had a similar experience on my talk, based on BG's desire to use a Nazi website as an RS. It made me question their competence then, and nothing in this discussion has persuaded me I was wrong to do so. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

On BG's addition of a neonazi website: the editor also failed to get the point, thrice, with a general sense of hostility when Doug explained about why the sources are rejected, here.

Doug - [Template warning message, lv3] If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content [...]

BG - I think you know that I didn't add any unsourced content [...]

Doug - [...] it also says poorly sourced. Interesting that you see a white nationalist neo-Nazi website as a good source.

BG - [...] it seems to me that you were implying that I added unsourced content, even though I didn't.

BG - Okay, I will try to be as clear as possible: if all you meant was "don't add poorly sourced content", just say, "don't add poorly sourced content", and not something that isn't "don't add poorly sourced content." If you can't understand that, perhaps I shouldn't bother to keep replying.

[Emphasis added on hostility (bold) and strawmanning (italic) wordings.]

Example above is also an admirable demonstration of my initial critique that BG's uncanny ability to fluidly switch between "I'm not sure, given the context, what you could mean by your edit-summary" and "you were implying that I added unsourced content" is very puzzling for a supposedly genuine / honest engagement; if these are indeed genuine responses, then said editor's competency is indeed in question. Whatever the reason behind the user's responses might be, the editor's way of contribution is surely not one that's compatible with a collaborative project. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with others that the passive-aggressiveness specifically around the issue of using grossly inappropriate sources seems intentional and very telling. --JBL (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Should also note BG's inability to acknowledge / respond to Doug's main critique, "[don't use] white nationalist neo-Nazi website as [a source]", a glaringly obvious issue for most editors (at least, according to Wikipedia:No Nazis), twice in a row. A hypothetical typical editor would probably immediately start defending their sources from being accused of neo-nazism, instead of focusing on a misunderstanding* of Doug's message. BG is criticizing Doug for causing BG to misunderstand the implied meaning of a template message, a very absurd shift of burden.

* It should also be pointed out that even if it's not a misunderstanding, that Doug really did only type "unsourced", BG's reply still wouldn't make sense - the hypothetical texts are italicized.

- don't add unsourced or poorly sourced stuff don't add unsourced stuff

- hey it's not unsourced

- please read, i said "or poorly sourced stuff" sorry i meant poorly sourced. don't add neo-nazi white nationalist stuff as references.

- I'll try to be as clear as possible, [you need to say very clearly, "poorly sourced", don't imply "unsourced" instead,] perhaps I shouldn't bother to keep replying.

Might be a bit too simplified / exaggerated, but that's the way I read it. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 19:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that the first conflict I was involved in with BeatrixGodard, which led to the caution to avoid personal attacks and the SPI investigation, was to do with a conflict over how to represent the views of the "MAGA Communist" podcaster Haz Al-Din who is very controversial for a combination of claims to a Marxist perspective combined with a lot of reactionary political aesthetics and associations with Alexander Dugin. In this circumstance BG was representing a POV that would have distanced Haz Al-Din from the right-wing perspectives often identified by his critics. So it does seem that these figures associated with... heterodox... right-wing perspectives are something of a perennial issue. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The more I look at BG's editing history the more suspicious I grow regarding the intentions behind their edits; BG's pattern of combativeness and inclination to gaslight other editors is giving me harder and harder times to assume good faith. I initially suggested a topic-ban, but after writing these analyses I want to suggest a timed block instead. Being a long thread like this, I will save any future analysis for somewhere else; I just hope I've helped to make the case clear enough. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 19:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• At the SPI archive, Izno said Based on my check, I'm most of the way to blocking BeatrixGodard under Wikipedia:Open proxies#Checkuser. Trolling with a side of detection evasion is a good way to earn one. Later, BG course corrected enough for Izno to not block. Given the evidence provided here, it looks like they've successfully derailed, though, so it may be time to block. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, I've nipped this at the bud and blocked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP

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

---

90.186.249.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disruptively editing [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] on multiple pages despite multiple warnings that they have ignored with no effort to communicate and outright blanked in the spirit of WP:IDNHT, see [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180]. I have reported them to AIV and filed an protection request at Ascensor da Glória derailment but the responses have been to downplay it. Borgenland (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for a month for disruptive editing. But maybe fewer diffs in your report next time? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I know. I normally file less but given how things weren't taken seriously at RFP and AIV, I did not want to take chances here this time. Borgenland (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

PS: They immediately blanked their TP again. Will be keeping an eye next month. Borgenland (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Borgenland: Just so you know, IP addresses of anonymous editors will not be visible to most users next month, as they are being replaced with temporary accounts. You may want to consider requesting the temporary account IP viewer user right so that you can see these IP addresses, as it will likely be very useful for antivandal work. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Large swath of possibly loosely reviewed AI rewrites by Bookleo

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

For full background see this thread on WikiProject AI Cleanup.

The gist: this user has made dozens, possibly hundreds (I lost count) of probably LLM-generated edits mostly to high-profile book articles; their edits show signs of AI use across the board in general but the smoking gun here is that at least one diff left in the chatbot response (Here's the revised Wikipedia article section with the caption properly placed in the Multiple image template:). Their talk page explanations also read LLM-generated.

Obviously we do not have an actual policy against AI if the content is thoroughly reviewed, but the fact that this was left in at least one edit does not suggest that happened. The time between substantive edits is also fairly quick -- especially the case with lead rewrites, in one case six substantive rewrites were made in 65 minutes -- which also does not suggest much review is being done. Finally, one reviewer found at least one possibly fabricated source in only about 20 minutes' worth of spot-checking.

I left a message on their talk page asking about it (as did others) but they haven't responded despite continuing to edit. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I suggested taking this to ANI but didn't because I saw that @Newslinger is on the case. But while we are here, here are the diffs @Gnomingstuff references above: [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186]. While the 1st diff is actually fine, and I lack the subject matter expertise to evaluate the 5th, a quick review of the other edits confirms that there are obvious violations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and even WP:V that have been introduced by unreviewed LLM hallucination and (especially) editorialization. NicheSports (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I was originally going to wait for Bookleo to respond, and only apply a block if they continued editing in article space without responding, but I do believe the LLM abuse is egregious enough to warrant an immediate block from article space. I'm hoping that Bookleo will agree to cease their LLM use and clean up all of their LLM-generated edits. — Newslinger talk 21:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It would be good to establish that high volume sequences of unreviewed (high-probability) LLM-generated edits means an immediate block from article space pending further discussion with the user. Of note related to the similar recent case here: an experienced user raised a concern about Jaravedr's edits on their talk page on 11 July. Jaravedr went on to rewrite ~175 leads after receiving that talk page comment. If it was understood that this kind of edit history means an immediate temp block, then that experienced user might instead have reported right away and saved the community a lot of cleanup time NicheSports (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I also noticed that at least two of @Bookleo's LLM-generated edits occurred immediately after reverts of LLM-generated edits by @Jaravedr. See Transnational citizenship and Richard and the Young Lions. Maybe admins have tools to search for more examples of this to see if there is a pattern or it's just coincidence? The cause may just be that editors using LLMs like this seem to be attracted to the lede is too short or too long templates. Lijil (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked Bookleo (talk · contribs) from article space indefinitely, as a partial block. A partial block from article space does appear to be the standard practice on this noticeboard for large-scale LLM misuse. Bookleo is still invited to participate in this discussion, and may be unblocked if they are willing to assist with cleanup efforts. — Newslinger talk 07:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I have reviewed two of the recent ledes Bookleo revised with AI-generated text, and both have serious errors. On Akbarpur Airstrip (see diff) the AI lede includes a claim about the length of the airstrip with a source (6) but the source gives a different length. In addition the lede makes it sound as thought the airstrip is active "for general aviation", when in fact there are no scheduled flights at all and it is not in use. In the article Richard and the Young Lions (see diff) you can see the same overly positive summarising as in the airport article: the article describes a band that is barely known and only had one hit that was popular in Detroit but not nationally known. It was briefly in 99th place on the Billboard Hot 100 list in the 1960s. The AI lede presents the band as being "best known" for the hit, which is a "regional hit" and "charted on the Billboard Hot 100". So we see hallucination and puffery, both of which are known and consistent problems with AI-generated content. Note also that although the edits have detailed edit summaries, the edit summaries don't match the actual edits. I think we need to ban AI-generated edits and implement strategies for making them harder to do. I like these concrete suggestions from @Polygnotus. Lijil (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I had concerns about the The Showman article back in May (as did other editors on Talk:The Showman), and left a question on Bookleo's talk page asking them for clarification on possible AI use, but they never responded. The synopsis in particular reads generic, doesn't closely adhere to the book's content or structure, and includes repeated variations of lines such as "In conclusion, The Showman provides a nuanced portrayal of Zelenskyy". Helpful Cat {talk} 11:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Extensive sock/meatpuppetry, cross-wiki abuse

I am starting a discussion here about this, per advice at SPI from Tamzin.

There are multiple accounts involved in sock/meatpuppetry. The main account seems to be Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs) (SR), although there is at least one account older than that involved. SR was indefinitely blocked on ja-wiki in August 2024 for sock/meatpuppetry centering around the ja-wiki article of Yasuke. [187] [188]

• SR received a TBAN from editing Yasuke here on en-wiki on 22:56 13 November 2024. [189]
• A new account Bladeandroid (talk · contribs) (BA) was created on 06:46 15 November 2024 [190]
• Within an hour of account creation, BA began editing at Talk:Yasuke,[191] in the same section SR had edited just days prior. [192]
• BA made random edits on its userpage to WP:PGAME auto-confirmed status.[193] First edit atterwards to mainspace was at Yasuke to add an infobox image,[194] which SR had previously edit warred over.[195] [196]
• BA received a TBAN from editing Yasuke in February 2025 [197]
• BA goes dormant following the TBAN, but returns after 4 months of inactivity to comment in an ANI discussion in June 2025,[198] making the same !vote as SR had made.[199]
• BA and SR both join the same discussion on Commons a few days ago, each arguing the same way and making claims of "corruption" against Commons sysop Josve05a. (BA: "This is basically corruption". SR: "Smells fishy like corruption.")

BA was blocked yesterday for unsubstantiated allegations that Josve05a and Yann are sockpuppets (both accounts are 15+ years old and each have 700,000+ global edits). SR was blocked today for unsubstantiated allegations that myself and Josve05a are sockpuppets. There are other accounts involved beyond SR and BA. The ANI discussion in June where both SR and BA !voted the same way related to accounts including NutmegCoffeeTea (talk · contribs) (NCT) and Wyll Ravengard (talk · contribs) (WR). Other editors said those accounts were tag-teaming, and both accounts received TBANs. [200] [201] Blocks for those accounts were also discussed, and both SR and BA joined the discussion to oppose blocks as mentioned above.

• Both SR [202] [203] and NCT [204] incorrectly spelled weasel as "weasal" while editing Yasuke
• SR and NCT double !voting in a deletion review of the redirect "Karmelo Anthony" in August 2025, hours apart [205] [206]
• SR had previously tried to blank/delete this redirect linking to the article killing of Anthony Metcalf [207] [208]
• Another account, Ryuudou (talk · contribs), appears after 9 years of inactivity to participate in a RfC on Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf, voicing the same opinion [209] as SR had voiced days prior [210]
• Ryuudou then edit wars to remove the redirect template to "Karmelo Anthony". [211] [212] [213]
• On 05:29, 18 September 2025, WR returned after 3 months of inactivity since the TBAN to continue the edit war over the redirect template [214]

There have been CU checks on SR at ja-wiki and en-wiki. When blocking SR on ja-wiki, they stated there were unusual and unnatural reconnections by the accounts. An editor from ja-wiki stated SR is using a residential VPN to mask the sock/meatpuppetry. Some accounts related to SR were CU blocked at ja-wiki in August 2024, with the editor who performed the CU stating this may be part of wider long-term abuse case [215]

The Ryuudou account is older than the SR account (2016 v 2018). There are likely more than just the accounts I've mentioned involved in this, as these are all unique accounts from the ones blocked on ja-wiki previously. Editors who are familiar with Yasuke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) or other target areas such as Killing of Austin Metcalf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) may know of other accounts operated by this same person/group. I have not edited either of those articles so I don't know all the accounts. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM is a fairly far-right editor (misgendering and transphobia:[216][217], whitewashing on Trump:[218][219], goomer gang conspiracy stuff:[220], whitewashing of racism and homophobia:[221]) and probably is a sock based on his edits being all mobile edits. His claims were mostly rejected at SPI. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@NutmegCoffeeTea Not commenting on anything raised here right now, but "and probably is a sock based on his edits being all mobile edits" doesn't make much sense to me, as a checkuser. I recommend you strike that. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: It's the same pattern as the other accounts, immediately makes random unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry. It's why BA and SR were blocked and this account is being used now instead. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I just think it's weird that he exclusively uses the mobile editor but doesn't prefix his links with "m". Could be somebody on their phone, no? I could be totally wrong though. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't really suggest socking or much of anything to me. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see, this is more of the meat/socking accusations around Yasuke that don't go anywhere. I would advise anyone active around that subject to be careful in commenting here, as I think most admins and ANI regulars are tired about hearing about this. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

As it happens I did use the mobile links [222] but removed them [223] as most people editing such discussions probably aren't on mobile (and if they are on mobile it redirects to m.wiki anyway). So you are 'totally wrong', as you were when you made the unsubstantiated claims on your other accounts Bladeandroid and Symphony Regalia that Yann and I are sockpuppets of Josve05a.

This does seem like a decent strategy though, just throw around enough unsubstantiated claims so normal editors can't be bothered to read through any of the discussion. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I really understand your point but mobile links are fairly hated by many so it's not surprising if an experienced editor, even one using a mobile device, provides non mobile links in any discussion. Especially in cases where it's as simple as removing the m. 11:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this... Is this really how we're going to do this? Every person in this dispute makes a retaliatory claim of sockpuppetry and gets blocked for it? This is unimaginably tiresome for anyone who isn't interested in the tit-for-tat of culture-war battleground editing. I previously warned NCT during an AE thread for unsubstantiated allegations that another editor was a white supremacist. I'm going to go ahead and indef for personal attacks (through spurious allegations) and battleground editing. Ironically, this is probably the best evidence that this isn't a sockfarm: You'd think that after having two accounts blocked for retaliatory claims of sockpuppetry, a sockmaster wouldn't try that with a third. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Endorse that. Thanks for dealing with this headache, Tamzin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Repeated unexplained content removal and refusal to discuss/reach consensus on talkpage, then counter accusations to prevent reversion

user:R3YBOl has repeatedly removed sourced content from the Free Arabian Legion article. This is what the page looks like before his removals [224], then after [225]. See the full page/dif history here [Talk:Free Arabian Legion]. He has not expounded once on why he feels the material is being removed from the article. He has also been invited to the talkpage to discuss this multiple times. He has failed to do so. See the talk page here.Talk:Free Arabian Legion. Also the user in question has also stated it is POV editing to revert him…except he doesnt give what the POV is or any reason why its POV editing.

This seems to fit “ Fails to engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits” under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I suppose what he views as his explanation is that it was “unhelpful” for these to be in the article (he has not explained why at all, since it adds information about this unit’s composition and purpose and events surrounding it), and then went on to make a demonstrably false statement that only Extended Confirmed users should be allowed to edit the article and he was just removing IP edits, even though I’m not an IP user and he reverted me, and despite the fact that he himself is not an EC user and the article isnt even un EF protection to begin with!

However I will refrain from reverting further at the moment because another user has sided with him in the latest revision.[226]

This other user brings up onus and the bold/revert/discuss rule, which I agree with: except

1. the other user was bold to remove sources (and without explanation which according to guidelines is eligible for immediate deletion, see Wikipedia:Content removal “Removing part of an article needs to be at least explained and in some cases discussed. Unexplained content removal (UCR) occurs when the reason is not obvious; the edit is then open to being promptly reverted”)

2. multiple posts have been on the talkpage to discuss and he is the one not discussing his decision on the talkpage.

Since he won’t go to the talkpage and appears to be flagrantly ignoring guidlines, and another user is assisting him, I’m not sure how to proceed. Thx M.S. Asher (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Since he won't go to the talkpage and appears to be flagrantly ignoring guidlines I was working on other articles that I was planning to finish first, and planned to address the talk page discussion.multiple posts have been on the talkpage to discuss and he is the one not discussing his decision on the talkpage. I see there have been concerns raised on the talk page that I need to address. I will go to the talk page now and discuss the specific content in question to work toward consensus. R3YBOl (🌲) 22:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Note: Contrary to the OP's claim, it seems that R3YBOl has been reverting edits, not "removing sourced content." The OP has introduced the disputed content in the first place and has engaged in WP:LOUTSOCKING by edit warring while logged out.[227][228][229] Per WP:ONUS, the burden is on them to seek consensus and justify the added material. Skitash (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

NOR violations for two years by prog rock fan in Poland

• 2A01:118F:814:8C00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

I need some help with Special:Contributions/2A01:118F:814:8C00:0:0:0:0/64 from Lublin, Poland. The person is not communicating, just reverting back to their preferred versions.

Their area of interest is prog rock. They add performance information which is not found in the album liner notes, such as who sang the lead part, and which tracks had tambourine. This kind of participation comes from careful listening—they are not citing published reviews. They have been violating WP:No original research at least since August 2023.[230]

Before that, they were active as Special:Contributions/178.42.110.208 in 2021, and sometimes they have dipped into the shared range Special:Contributions/2A00:F41:9000:0:0:0:0:0/40,[231] for instance tweaking an addition one minute after the previous IP6 range had edited.[232] It's possible they have edited as Special:Contributions/93.159.27.26, Special:Contributions/84.40.234.34, and Special:Contributions/5.173.168.1, though these are bent on genre-warring. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

After further investigation, I think this activity represents ban evasion by User:Uss7777 from Poland whose socks I was tangling with in May 2021.[233] The range Special:Contributions/83.9.0.0/16 was blocked. That case also involved prog rock topics, introducing unpublished information. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

IP edit warring with no communication

This ip, currently at Special:Contributions/2601:58A:8402:7EB0:6C6F:4607:1117:E160 has, for days now, been tendentiously adding a plethora of inappropriate links (e.g. links to sections in articles, redirects without sections, multiple links to the same article, links that have nothing to do with the topic) to Template:School shootings in the United States. Multiple people have reverted them on this, they have been warned on multiple IPs, they always revert back with no communication. I took it to ANI rather than 3RR noticeboard because this has been slow and the no communication is the bigger issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: Special:Contributions/2601:58A:8402:7EB0:6C6F:4607:1117:E160/64 and Special:Contributions/2600:1700:3870:B400:CD77:E09:E743:35A3/64 appear to be the ranges. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems like the best solution would be to semi-protect the template to stop the problematic edits from being made. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Anything that solves the issue. They keep doing it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Yea protect is the solution; think can just request protection and call it good for now. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I posted a request on RFPP. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

LTA IP talk page access

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

---

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

Could talk page access please be revoked here? Based off of this edit, this is very clearly an LTA IP associated with WP:LTA/REVERSI. Possibly also just a deletion of the talk page per WP:BANREVERT and/or a longer block?... Not quite sure if notifying the IP regarding this is necessary as it is an LTA that just plainly harasses no matter what, and will likely continue with more IPs and/or accounts in the future (keeps on finding/harassing me through different sandbox pages of mine). Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Resolved. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

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

IP's edits are all unsourced OR/BLP violations

202.180.92.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Blackcraft1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Prolific edits on BLP articles adding or changing very specific claims about ethnicity. Every single edit is unsourced.

Previous ANI resulted in a temporary block, which was lifted in 31 hours then the IP immediately went back to the same edits. There's six warnings on the IP talk page and two on the user talk page, all unanswered. Named user's edits are equivalent to the IPs (e.g. [234] and [235], [236], [237]).

1. Adding "x descent": [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254]
2. Changing from "Spanish" to "Portuguese": [255], [256]
3. Changing from "Arab" to "Middle Eastern": [257]
4. Changing from "Jordanian" to "Palestinian": [258]
5. Removing "x descent": [259], [260], [261]
6. Various claims about the ancestries of ancestors: [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278]
7. Claim about a BLP's mother: [279]
8. Straight out just guessing: [280]

Northern Moonlight 03:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Makali2 COI/Edit warring

@Makali2 has only ever edited on Nikolas Schreck, and has indicated they are a shared account (WP:NOSHARE) and may be making edits at the request of the subject in violation of WP:COI. I originally reported this to the edit warring noticeboard but this has gone beyond that, since they seem to be basing their edits off of what Schreck has told them, and edit the text without sources. They edit warred the removal of material without explanation and without discussion despite being pinged. Now discussing, they have indicated this may be because Schreck asked them to ("We are a consortium of researchers who strive to correct misinformation on several authors, artists, musicians and spiritual figures who are frequently misrepresented by underresearched or biased sources."). They have also removed well-sourced material simply justifying it as being "wrong" with no proof or sourcing, disputing highly regarded academic books because the subject of the article (a white supremacist) disagrees "Sunshine (whose book may be well received by sympathetic reviewers but is also rife with errors.)". "Several sources about public figures say many things, this one happens not to be true. Therefore we deleted it." PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Trying to push a fandom site [281] as an RS and playing dumb when confronted with it [282] is enough to merit either WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR. Borgenland (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

[283] This message to me reads as... slightly threatening towards me ("[we] will seek other means of correcting the inaccuracies you insist on reiteraring.", though I may be overanalyzing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

They have indicated there are more accounts run by the same people [284]: "With all due respect, many other articles on similar topics that fall short of the objective neutrality standards Wikipedia advocates have been successfully improved." Given they have made no other edits, is there a paid editing scheme going on here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they are necessarily implying that, though the use of 'we' and the somewhat implied (possibly legal?) threat of will seek other means of correcting the inaccuracies you insist on reiteraring is definitely fairly worrying. It could be a paid editing scheme, but (in an attempt to maintain good faith), they could just be referring to the general process the project uses to improve articles. (I do wonder if all this warrants a CU though? If this is a paid editing scheme, that might be able to help expose it) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 05:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

There are reasons to ask questions here but you all have drawn a lot of conclusions based on 18 edits of a new editor. Maybe be a little patient and not rush to judgment. Did this situation really call for a visit to ANI so soon? As a longtime admin, it's unsettling to me to see experienced editors come to ANI with every question or dispute they run into. This isn't urgent or an intractable behavioral problem. They have already been brought to DRN and ANEW and now ANI on the same day. Your ANEW complaint said that they refused to reply when they did post a lot on the article talk page that you would have seen if you hadn't rushed to post a complaint. Despite what I'm saying, there are questions to ask here but PARAKANYAA, you don't need to make daily visits to ANI. We should discourage editors from running to ANI to settle disputes that might just need a few more days of discussion, especially with new editors who are unfamiliar with all of the rules here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it not concerning to have someone attempt to make COI edits, indicating they are doing this based on the request of the subject (without admitting it, which is far worse), and to insert unsourced and unreliably sourced text on a WP:BLP, which they have been doing for two months? This person has no edits outside of Schreck and they have said they are doing it as some sort of wider "project", and said that the reason it was unreliable as a source is because Schreck told them. Judging from their comments, their single purpose as an editor is to edit this page.

They did not post on the article talk page, despite me pinging them multiple times and telling them to take it to talk in an edit summary, the complaint was filed. Where else was I supposed to go? They did not respond. They reverted multiple editors 4 times and had inserted unsourced changes on a blp with no other reason besides "the source is wrong" based on nothing. Unsourced additions on a BLP are not acceptable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

IP 92.15.144.109 repeatedly making personal attacks at editors

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

---

I just came into contact with an IP user at 92.15.144.109 by responding to a talk page suggestion of theirs at Talk:Avengers: Doomsday#Suggestion, where they wanted to have some information removed from the article. I declined that request, as I would with any similar edit request, on the basis of upholding consensus from a relatively recent discussion on the material and the conflicting information from reputable sources. I told the IP that "reliably sourced and verified information and reports are not removed from Wikipedia just because the subject or involved company does not want them confirmed." It appears they took my response the wrong way, though I presume they are just a single-purpose troll hiding behind a UK-based IP address based on their response to my comment, saying "Alright fair enough but still maybe try not to be so rude when I am simply making a suggestion honestly weren’t you ever taught any manners." and "you know what screw it if that’s how you act all childish more power to you", as well as due to past warnings they have received for similar behavior. Many of these may be found in the IP's talk history, which showcases a number of their inappropriate remarks targeting fellow editors who have warned them for their harassment behavior. Some of their notable go-tos are "basement dwelling" towards @Thilio and @Belbury, particularly declaring "Stop harrassing me you basement dwelling loser and then I’ll stop.", as well as their rant here with flawed misconceptions about Wikipedia's terms of use by stating "our attack on me trailblazer101 is the tactics of a child.Misinterpreted” are you okay? Did I do something to upset you? Whatever it is try to find a more constructive way to convey your message. Vandalising my page for simply making a suggesting is a violation of my rights a wiki user and all under the guise of being an admin who cares when really it’s a cowardly excuse to seek to hurt people like myself. Wikipedia is meant to be a safe space for users and editors like to explore to create..."

This IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE to engage constructively with fellow editors and is just a troll. Best not to waste a headache over this, but I felt compelled to file a formal report after noticing their repeat infractions and gross behavior. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Ghost film entry, persistent addition of unsourced information

• Diff 1
• 112.208.188.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This user, I am not sure if they are one of those who were previously reported for adding film entries to Vice Ganda's filmography and other BLP articles. They have repeatedly added films that do not exist for reasons that are unclear. One such film is titled Petrang Kabayo. While this film does exist from before 2015, there has never been any announcement from production companies regarding a sequel or spin-off. There is no evidence that any continuation of this film exists, yet it has been repeatedly added. They have also used other film titles apart from Petrang Kabayo, which seem to insult Filipino artists. Action is needed. - Arcrev1 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)