Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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

User:TylerDurden8823, mass changes, introducing factual errors

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

---

User:TylerDurden8823 mass changes the term "alcohol abuse" to "alcohol use disorder", even though they are different things. Wikipedia has two seperate articles for it. The article Alcohol use disorder says, "This article is about chronic alcohol abuse that results in significant health problems. For alcohol abuse in general, see Alcohol abuse." So basically, the user assumes everone who (ab)uses alcohol has a disorder which is factually wrong. Even if it was correct in certain cases, it would be an unsourced change. A previous talk page discussion was blanked (Special:Diff/1101915733#"Alcohol_abuse"_to_"alcohol_use_disorder") and an ongoing one ignored (Talk:Stevie_Ray_Vaughan#"Alcohol_abuse"_vs._alcohol_use_disorder). Even if you interpret both terms as synonyms (which wikipedia doesn't do, as again, we have two seperate articles), it would still be an unnecessary change as "alcohol abuse" is a perfectly fine term to use, and it would be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- FMSky (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not because "I don't like it". The discussion was over and my talk page had become very lengthy (people had asked me to archive my page for some time and it was becoming burdensome). There is no reason to regularly use the term alcohol abuse since it is stigmatizing when a perfectly reasonable less stigmatizing alternative exists. I'm not sure how you decided that Wikipedia doesn't interpret both as synonyms, the dictionary does, but regardless of whether you see it as an "unnecessary change," is merely your own opinion, but there's nothing wrong with it. Even if Wikipedia has two separate articles for it, that doesn't make it factually true. As below, you have acknowledged that it is a synonym and contradicted yourself. You were unable to provide a compelling case for why the term "alcohol abuse" is necessary over alcohol use disorder before too and remain unable to do so. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I regularly abuse alcohol, but do not have a disorder? Good point. I agree, these are not the same. We aren't all teetotalers.PrisonerB (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said that I am a teetotaler nor that everyone should be. I am sorry to hear that you regularly abuse alcohol though I'm not sure how that's relevant. Your opinion here about whether these terms are synonymous is irrelevant. High-quality sources say they are (see below). Wikipedia reflect what high-quality sources say. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that these are NOT synonyms, and @TylerDurden8823: should NOT be making such changes. Use disorder is not the same thing as abuse, and we should strive to reflect what the sources themselves say. If the source says something is "________ abuse" we should use that phrasing, and if the source says something is "________ use disorder" we should use that phrasing. They are different things, and should not be used interchangeably. --Jayron32 12:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Really? See the following quote from alcoholism: "Because there is disagreement on the definition of the word alcoholism, it is not a recognized diagnostic entity. Predominant diagnostic classifications are alcohol use disorder[2] (DSM-5)[4] or alcohol dependence (ICD-11); these are defined in their respective sources.[15]" The NIAAA also says you're wrong here with a direct quote: [1] "It encompasses the conditions that some people refer to as alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, alcohol addiction, and the colloquial term, alcoholism." Merriam Webster agrees too, FYI [2] "NOTE: Alcohol use disorder ranges from mild to severe and is typically considered to encompass conditions also referred to as alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, alcohol addiction, and alcoholism." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I warned him about this previously (probably 2 years ago) and was basically given the impression I needed to piss off, I just hadn't gotten around to following up. But this is a very long time problem. It would take a lot of time to go through and fix everything he has done. But they aren't the same, and he has been extraordinarily disruptive with it, to the point it will take someone going through his edits to fix it. I can't see just letting this slide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because your warning and conduct were inappropriate and you didn't interact well and come across as disrespectful. I have not been disruptive about it and you seem to misunderstand the differences here. Please see the quotations from very strong sources below. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

just looked it up, yikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TylerDurden8823&diff=1018259691&oldid=1018215721 --this is a bigger problem than i'd originally thought --FMSky (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and your objections are all inappropriate. They are appropriate substitutions. It is the name for the disorder. As I have discussed in several places, it is backed up by numerous sources. I think you may need a hobby rather than wikistalking me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes great thats a name for the disorder. What does this have to do with people having abused alcohol on occasion? --FMSky (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There are clearly defined criteria for what constitutes alcohol use disorder. A person can qualify even if it's periodic. So, you're admitting then that it's a name for the disorder and thus a synonym. Great, that's progress. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A name (not even the name, that would be "alcoholism") for the disorder yes, synonym to alcohol/substance abuse obviously not. --FMSky (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you really going to try and debate what constitutes a synonym with a nonsensical semantics argument? Please see the dictionary's definition of a synonym here [3]. I do not see why you are clinging so desperately to unnecessary stigmatizing language when you have acknowledged on more than one occasion that alcohol use disorder is a synonym, even in this thread. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

not a synonym. the end --FMSky (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself and flying in the face of the dictionary and other strong sources, FYI. This now just seems like stubborn refusal because you don't like it. Seems hypocritical to me to cast aspersions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when this is the display I'm seeing. How about you address the actual sources I have provided? You have now acknowledged that they are synonyms twice [4] [5] and then backpedaled [6] and contradicted yourself [7] both times.(talk) 21:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget to focus on content. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't, but it doesn't prevent me from pointing out contradictions and a pattern of behavior directly aimed at me since they decided to open this can of worms back up and aren't leaving me alone.(talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Didn't someone called 'TylerBurden' just get ARBCOM banned? Is TylerDurden a second cousin or something? 🤔  Tewdar  21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no clue. Unrelated. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

My apologies then, just a coincidence.  Tewdar  21:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to make it clear that there's no connection there, Tyler Durden is a character from the novel (and movie) Fight Club. Tyler Burden is just a play on the name Durden, but both are (presumably) named after that character, one just decided to make a play on words with it. There are at least 6 editors that contain TylerDurden or Tyler Durden at the beginning of the name (which is honestly way fewer than I expected), but it's a popular character in certain circles so it's very much just a coincidence that two different editors happen to have a similar name around that theme. - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• In light of Tyler's comment about being a physician who has treated many people with this disorder, as well as his objection to the 'stigmatizing' nature of the term 'alcohol abuse', I suspect we might be in WP:RGW territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Nonsense and I don't appreciate the focus on character. Please focus on the content. As I have said, I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the stigmatizing term nor seen it disproved that alcohol use disorder is a synonym. The facts remain what they are. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Let me ask you this way: is it possible for a person without an alcohol use disorder to abuse alcohol? Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I refer you back to the definitions provided. But yes, if it has been under a year since alcohol use disorder refers to a slightly more longstanding pattern of this kind of alcohol consumption. Nevertheless, based on how we use this term on Wikipedia and widely in other sources, they are largely considered synonymous (see the many sources I have provided). If someone abused alcohol and then stopped for a few months and never did it again, I suppose that would be the exception to the rule. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that one is a disorder and the other an activity; I understand your argument here, but there is a sense in which they are synonymous (understanding "abuse" as a habit or ongoing activity) and one in which they are not (understanding "abuse" as an independent incident). By my lights, it is worth preserving that distinction for encyclopedic purposes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the disorder encompasses that. I still have yet to see you address the sources provided. Please do. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

So, if I were to say "we have to stop alcohol abuse at fraternity parties," you would understand that I was making a mental health plea? Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

What is your point? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

My point is that the phrase "alcohol abuse" can indeed be used as a substitute for "alcohol use disorder," but it can also be used to refer to discrete activities. In my "fraternity" example above, I would understand the phrase to refer to overconsumption at said parties without reference to the mental state of those involved. Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read the comments above carefully. I didn't say that they can't though others have and that's the point. Even though I would understand what you're saying in the sentence above, it would be more correct to say binge drinking or high-risk alcohol use. Again, this really seems like splitting hairs. Out of the articles I edited, I have a feeling that examples that your specific example would apply to here, if any, would likely be in a very small minority at best. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Taking a quick gander, the only recent example I find is Stevie Ray Vaughn's father, and while I certainly understand your point, for me, anyway, I would slightly prefer the "abuse" language. It strikes me as something closer to an objective, observable fact. "Alcohol use disorder" strikes me as more like a diagnosis from afar, even if it is one that makes a great deal of sense. In everyday life and common parlance, I think you are right, but on Wikipedia where I believe in epistemic humility, it strikes me as just a bit too far. It's like some (admittedly obvious) WP:OR. I'll be the first to say that medicine is not my forte, but I think this is an instance where we need to hew closely to the sources. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is a common misunderstanding I see, even sometimes among experienced editors, where someone thinks that some sources equating two things in the general case mean that we can do so in each specific case. This may be true for terms that are strictly synonymous. Like if RS agree that a wrench and a spanner are the same thing, and one source says "The Queen always carries a spanner", it might be acceptable to state that the Queen always carries a wrench. But for academic terms like these, not defined the same way by everyone, with meanings that have evolved over time, that doesn't work. If you're going to say someone has alcohol use disorder, you need a citation saying that they, specifically, do. Anything less is WP:SYNTH. If Tyler can't see that, then I'm inclined to support a TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree that you have to have the source use that exact terminology when that is the name for the disorder. Please address the specific sources specifically saying that these are direct synonyms and the massive contradiction that we use the term "use disorder" for every other substance other than alcohol (despite many sources in the laypress continuing to use archaic stigmatizing terms-it's a mixed world out there and addiction medicine remains very misunderstood). We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. Your internal logic here has some major holes in it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. That's not acceptable either. Neither is saying that someone has major depressive disorder based on sources saying they're depressed, antisocial personality disorder based on sources saying they're a sociopath, etc. If you don't understand that, I worry that a TBAN from alcohol might not go far enough. And it's not my "internal logic". It's the logic of this community in creating SYNTH. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I 100% disagree with your premise and it falls afoul of the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy. I'll tell you what though-I think I've had enough of the malignant policies and people on Wikipedia. I think I'll just stop editing altogether. You may do what you wish. You'll continue to lose veteran editors if you keep this up. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, to be honest I would go a step further to say that Wikipedia's psychology articles have an especially hard time distinguishing psychopathy/sociopathy from antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. I agree it's not acceptable, and this is only made harder by the overlap between criminal psychology and clinical psychology and their real-world disagreements that are in my experience difficult to represent with due weight in-article. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not commenting on this discussion but clerically noting that I have fixed the links in the original message (they were broken raw links as the last parenthesis was being treated as part of the link) and made them wikilinks to the intended destinations. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I will point out that academically speaking the words are not synonymous. According to [8], Alcohol misuse is a broad term that incorporates a spectrum of severity, ranging from hazardous use that exceeds guideline limits to misuse severe enough to meet criteria for an alcohol use disorder (AUD) ie. they are not synonymous, and do not even overlap as far as defitions go since alcohol abuse/misuse refers to subclinical AUD. In the interest of a less biased term, I would suggest "alcohol misuse" and "alcohol abuse" are synonyms, and I think the first is less stigmatising (this is just my opinion though - I don't know what other people think). AFIAK, the term "alcohol abuse" has fallen out in academia in preference for "alcohol misuse", and I believe it is probably to try and dodge the stigma, although I haven't seen any evidence it's actually achieved this. Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• I have not done an exhaustive check, just a dozen or so recent edits from TylerDurden8823's recent contributions. I do not see a mass of inappropriate changes. Most of the changes I looked at appeared reasonable, if not necessarily necessary, and were associated with a large number of minor copy edit improvements during the same edits. This does not tick the boxes of "mass edits" for me, considering that there were other edits interspersed. Also, most of the reversions also removed all the improvements as collateral damage. I would say the reversions I looked at did more harm than good. I do not know how many of the other people commenting here have inspected the actual changes under dispute, or how many they have checked, or how many of the cases of changing alcohol abuse or alcoholism to alcohol use disorder were actually inappropriate, taking into consideration that I also think that there is a difference between alcohol abuse as an activity and alcohol use disorder as a medical condition and alcoholism as a poorly defined non-medical term. To those of you who have not personally checked, I suggest that you do so. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban proposals

I'm proposing a topic ban from all topics regarding alcohol, broadly construed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. This is a long time problem that won't get fixed any other way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That's way overkill and not appropriate. The edits I have made are completely appropriate and have not introduced factual errors. I wholly disagree with your assessment and sense a clear ax to grind. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That you can't understand the problem is why a topic ban is necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Adding support for psychiatric disorders due to new evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reason. Or just never making that edit again, but that would be hard to monitor --FMSky (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

For anyone reviewing this, I again refer you to the aforementioned sources showing that Dennis, Prisoner, and FMSky are wrong. Here are just a few more showing that they are, in fact, synonyms by definition: [9], [10], [11] (suggesting these terms can be used interchangeably from a very strong source, NIDA), [12], [13] (analogous to how we use opioid use disorder, not "opioid abuse"-we literally do this for basically every other substance use disorder and appropriately so).

While I haven't thoroughly analyzed all of those sources, I wouldn't put too much stock in the Dictionary.com definition. While it says that the disorder is 'characterized by alcohol abuse or or dependence', I do not interpret that to mean that all forms of alcohol abuse are necessarily connected to the disorder. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That's up to you but that's the weakest of the sources provided. Merriam Webster is a much stronger source and says the same as do sources like the NIAAA. Your argument sounds like a pedantic one that misses the intention behind the definition you're quoting. Cleveland Clinic disagrees with you [14] as does UPenn [15]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm making an honest effort to help sort out this dispute, and it's requiring a little bit of extra effort to fully understand what these terms mean and whether they can be used interchangeably. You may deal with these issues on a regular basis, but the rest of us don't. If you could actually answer Dumuzid's question, that would help all of us to better understand your point of view. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on how you originally entered the discussion, I did not get that impression since it felt like you immediately started commenting on character. If that's the impression you want others to have, then perhaps consider a different approach next time. I did answer Dumuzid's question. If you could read the sources I have provided (most of them are not that long) before commenting further and seeing that there are numerous examples that are directly saying that they're synonymous, that would be great. That would be more helpful to truly trying to sort out the issue. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I will peruse the sources when I return to Wikipedia later this evening. Or perhaps not. Talking down to me is not the best way to get me to do extra reading, and I think you'll find most other people here are similarly unimpressed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Talking down to you? I think you need to re-read your initial comment and really decide who spoke down to whom here. I just don't buy this feigned I just wanted to help innocent comment after opening with a comment on me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from psychiatric disorders. The discussion above does not leave me with faith that Tyler is able to edit in line with out policies and guidelines in this topic area. I actually don't know if a topic ban from alcohol in particular is necessary, if this topic ban is enacted; color me neutral. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on alcohol, broadly construed - Conflating alcohol abuse with alcohol use disorder is problematic WP:SYNTH. It's worsened by the fact that such conflation could lead to something like a BLP being described as having a mental disorder (alcohol use disorder) when the really don't have it. It also appears as though Tyler is not willing to acknowledge he is wrong or even agree to stop doing this, which is WP:IDHT. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on alcohol, broadly construed We do not need tenacious axe grinders misbehaving for years in a certain topic area. If the disruption spreads elsewhere, I will support a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on alcohol and drug use issues, broadly construed. I would expand the TBAN beyond the OP. Tyler hasn't limited this to alcohol, this is representative, not exhaustive, and if we narrow this TBAN to alcohol, it will continue for other issues as well. As a side note, they have taken their ball and gone home, though I think the TBAN discussion should continue since they could return at any time. --Jayron32 01:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on alcohol, broadly construed - I have no opinion about a topic ban on the broader drug issue or psychiatric disorders (though the above comments from Durden are not reassuring that there won't be an AN/I discussion later about these things in a broader sense) but what is well demonstrated is that there is an ongoing issue with alcohol that needs to be addressed, and a topic ban is the most narrow solution which will solve that without having to resort to flat out blocks or bans. - Aoidh (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from psychiatric disorders even if it will be moot as long as Tyler stays retired, which is certainly his prerogative. It's a shame to see a veteran editor leave on such terms, but nobody forced him to insist that everyone else was wrong. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well ... I'm not supporting because there's plenty of pile on without me, but if I had a dollar for everyone at ANI who slaps "RETIRED" on his or her user page in the wake of a filing not going their way (most of whom slink back after a few days or weeks), I could go to the corner pub and get thoroughly hammered. Ravenswing 14:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Striking my support upon further consideration. The underlying issues are clear as mud to me, and in retrospect I probably shouldn't have gotten involved in this discussion. I don't want to see an editor get unjustifiably sanctioned (retired or otherwise). I think this thread might have taken a very different direction if Tyler hadn't been so doggedly combative, but that's not a sufficient reason to topic ban him. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support because of the continuing problems.PrisonerB (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from medicals as a whole. There is clear evidence of disruption more than just alcohol. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I feel like this whole discussion is overkill. We're dealing with a situation in which terms have multiple meanings; also, we're frequently dealing with lower-quality sources (e.g., journalists who toss in whichever term they're familiar with, or whichever term a family member used, without verifying that this is, in fact, the completely and precisely correct term). And since some editors believe that term X means whatever Miss Snodgrass told them, and some editors believe, as an article of faith, that we should blindly follow the sources right off a cliff even if we know the source is wrong (or at least not so precise that we should rely on it for fine distinctions between closely related, overlapping, and sometimes contested terminology), and yet other editors believe that term Y is highly preferable because some other sources say to normally prefer Y over X, we are... going to topic ban someone who turned several highly viewed medical articles, including one on a serious and common psychiatric condition, into Wikipedia:Good articles?

  This might not be a proportionate response to a reasonable difference of opinion.

  In case folks haven't reviewed the edits in question, let me step you through two:

  The disputed change in MicroRNA is about whether we should say "Alcoholism" to "Alcohol use disorder". The cited source mentions:

  • "alcoholism" four times (not counting two mentions of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; counting one mention of specially bred animals for lab testing)
  • "chronic alcohol abuse" five times
  • "long-term alcohol abuse" once
  • "alcohol abuse" once (again, not counting NIAAA's name)

  If the goal were to stick strictly to the sources, then chronic alcohol abuse is the winner. That's a red link. What's the nearest term? Well, reasonable people could disagree, but alcohol use disorder sounds like a plausible option to me. AIUI everyone who "abuses" "alcohol" "chronically" actually does have AUD.

  This disputed change took a sentence that's probably got a Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing problem, and changed the plain-text words "teen drug and alcohol abuse" to a link to the nearest relevant article, "teen substance use disorder". Is this perfect? Maybe not. Is the cited source (in which the author says things like "I guess what they say is true: Everything is bigger in Texas, including their ignorance on the effects of such laws") perfect? Definitely not. Is there a material gap between "teen drug and alcohol abuse" and "teen substance use disorder"? Reasonable people could disagree, but the statement is going to be factually true (i.e., in the real world) regardless of whether you link to Substance abuse or Substance use disorder, and the reader's IMO best served by having a link to one of those pages, instead of having no links, which is what the reversion created. (Also, Wikipedia is best if we could please avoid copyright problems, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing, and reverting back to the prior too-close-for-comfort version is Not Actually Helping on that score. I'm going to assume here that the reverter didn't bother to look at the source, because the alternative is worse [i.e., that the reverter either doesn't understand our copyvio standards or doesn't mind violating them].)

  I think this dispute might have reached a productive resolution if the editors involved had tried contacting editors who know something about these subjects (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine) before trying to process this as an alleged rule-breaking incident. I wonder whether that might still be possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• I just re-read this "argument":

  The disputed change in MicroRNA is about whether we should say "Alcoholism" to "Alcohol use disorder". The cited source mentions: "alcoholism" four times (not counting two mentions of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; counting one mention of specially bred animals for lab testing) "chronic alcohol abuse" five times "long-term alcohol abuse" once "alcohol abuse" once (again, not counting NIAAA's name). If the goal were to stick strictly to the sources, then chronic alcohol abuse is the winner. That's a red link. What's the nearest term? Well, reasonable people could disagree, but alcohol use disorder sounds like a plausible option to me.

so basically, "alcohol use disorder" wasn't used once in the article but somehow you conclude that this is the term that should universally be used?.

"AIUI everyone who "abuses" "alcohol" "chronically" actually does have AUD.'" - and that seems like WP:OR to me. --FMSky (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

FMSky, you are missing the point. At AN/I we are not here to work out what the correct/ideal wording should be. WAID examined the source to demonstrate that it used many different terms for much the same thing, and noted the original text may have plagiarism issues. WP:OR says:

Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research.

So editors are permitted to use terms and words that do not appear in the source. Whether the original text or modified text "retains the substance" is not trivially obvious here. I'd suggest that an actual doctor with experience in this domain might have more of an instinct about this than just some random person on the internet. That doesn't mean they are right but some people here weirdly seem to think knowing something about the subject you are writing about should be held against him and all the more reason to topic ban them. Clearly some editors have strong opinions, and yours are very likely influenced by the investment you made with 100 reverts and complaining about the other guy at AN/I. We all then know that you and all the other folk with pitchforks and torches are unlikely to back down, in this forum, for obvious reasons. That makes this a crap place to have a discussion about the best wording for pathological alcohol use in our articles. I think WAID has demonstrated that a reasonable person paraphrasing the sources may have chosen the wording Tyler did. You are paying special attention to that edit because it changed the wording, rather than if Tyler wrote the whole paragraph originally. I'd really advise backing down on continuing to argue at AN/I and instead, if you do care about how we should word the terminology surrounding pathological alcohol use, then join the discussion at WT:MED (which won't be concerned with who is right or who should be sanctioned). -- Colin°^Talk 09:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I also want to call out the drift from what I said ("reasonable people could disagree...sounds plausible to me") to what FMSky said in reply ("you conclude that this is the term that should universally be used"). Hmm, I'm pretty sure that I didn't say anything that goes any further than the one article/one source I discussed, and I didn't even "conclude" which term "should" be used in that one sentence, much less which term "should universally be used".

I point this out because it's very easy to slide from narrow particulars into pounding on the table about the end of the world (anyone who wants to write a warning essay about this could likely fill it with examples from my own posts), and, even though it's a mistake I've made repeatedly, it is also a mistake that I think we should resist. There might be a certain dopamine rush when we jump from "She didn't fully agree with me about this one sentence" to "I gotta defend the whole wiki against these people who don't even believe in <shared value>!!!!1!!!!", but our community works best if we don't misrepresent the opinions of other editors, even if that makes for somewhat more boring, fact-based conversations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is a reasonable suggestion. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• agree as well w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Me too. I'm also interested in precisely what the scale of this mass editing is. The editor could have made three edits or three thousand from the evidence provided. I'm also very interested if there has a detailed discussion of the distinction between the terms... and how much the editor was involved in this discussion. I'm aware that content discussion can take a long time, and I'm not sure this is the correct forum, but it does rather feel like people have come to a conclusion here without much reference discussion of wht is right and wrong. It also strikes me that the terms "use" and "abuse" are very likely to be used within the literature for "political" purposes, so it's unlikely to be an open and shut case. Darcyiscute's source above seems like a good source on this [16], it has a summary of the terms in Table1... which does make things a little open and shut, but I wonder if this is simplification or editorializing on the part of the author. Talpedia (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point about to what extent that source editorializes the terms. So I've had a closer look at the 2016 review, which says which says: This table is adapted with permission from [...] and uses terminology from the DSM-IV for alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, and from the DSM5 for [alcohol use disorder]. The source table was abbreviated and updated to reflect the DSM-5 terminology for this report in collaboration with Dr. Jonas. If this is a faithfully reproduced table, then I have no reason to believe the review editorialized the definitions. The [...] is referring to [17], which is a standards recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, so for at least the US I believe this is a secondary source faithfully reproducing these 2013 standards and representing academic consensus on definitions, which in turn were largely based on the DSM-5 and ICD-10 at the time.

They mention a more detailed report of their methods is described at [18], which says: The operational definition of drinking limit guidelines varied across studies. Studies typically defined limits by a weekly total of standard drinks (eg, <20). (More detail on page 33).

There are a few nontrivial questions which I think would be best established at RfC (I do not think ANI is the right venue for this):

1. What term should articles use for referring to "consuming excessive alcohol"? Can editors use the USPSTF guidelines to determine if alcohol consumption is excessive?

2. (using placeholder "alcohol misuse") Does not following a USPSTF guideline constitute alcohol misuse? Is it original research for us to say x person has alcohol misuse based on this logic if it's not stated in a reliable source?

3. Is it libelous to claim on a BLP article that a person has "alcohol misuse" if this is not directly stated by reliable sources? (I haven't looked at all the editors' changes, but I think this is relevant)

Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

In a way quoting the DSM makes me *less* sure about the terminology - since the DSM will be prescriptive rather than descriptive of how researchers talk... but I agree let's chase this up somewhere else if we are going to dig into it.

On 2. I almost feel as if alcohol misuse has a distinct meaning with lower standards of evidence in biographies. If a lot of newspapers talk about alcohol misuse then perhaps we should use the "lay" meaning and not try to be specific. To be clearer we would need to have access to someone's medical records!

On 3. I suspect that if someone is shown to be repeatedly drinking to excess with negative results in reliable sources it would be reasonable to describe them as "misusing alcohol". On the other hand saying that someone has "alcohol use disorder" may well be libelous (depending on context) because it's more specific and it sort of implies that a doctor has agreed to this (and so, presumably, this information is more reliable). Talpedia (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I am tempted to add to this conversation, but I think we need to have the conversation elsewhere. I suspect that we need a conversation on stigmatizing language in general plus a separate one for alcohol specifically. Additionally, some of the disputed articles might need individual discussions.

Talpedia, I find 95 instances of FMSKy reverting TylerDurden's edits, so presumably, if we assume that 100% of those involved these terms, that means the "mass edits" is on the order of 100 edits. (They aren't all about alcohol; I don't see those terms in either this or this, both in the same article [the only one I checked], and the word alcohol doesn't appear on the page. But, still, as a rough approximation, it's probably closer to 100 than to 10 or to 1,000.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban per WhatamIdoing. Tyler has helped get articles to Good Article status. The changes Tyler has been making seem reasonable and the problem seems to surround nuanced disagreements between terminology e.g., alcoholism vs. alcohol use disorder, misuse vs. abuse. Such disagreements exist in the academic literature, professional bodies and treatment/recovery groups/organisations. This is a pure content dispute and this specific content dispute has arisen before on Wikipedia over the years. It is inappropriate to topic ban a user to settle a content dispute when there is no convincing behavioural issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Is there an official process for suspending or otherwise giving up on this discussion, at least until the content question can be discussed at other/suitable pages? I'm sure that nobody here wants to issue a topic ban when there's any significant chance that subsequent RFCs would prove the disputed edits correct, and it would be preferable to have this editor free to join in the content discussions (if he's willing, which is uncertain). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Why would that be needed? We currently have over 10 people in favor of a topic ban and only one against. Case seems pretty clear to me --FMSky (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Btw here again the source that the terms are not synonyms https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4837467/ --FMSky (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I count 3 and half (the half being me). I think it's still unclear what the best term is and it may well vary from a case to case basis. But you are correct, a lot of people seem to be in favor of topic ban. There are clear advantages of resolving content disputes through source analysis rather than topic bans in terms of compliance, personal growth, procedural fairness, article quality, and drama reduction and editor retention. There are however time costs and some editors may simply ignore any evidence given. Talpedia (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@FMSky, let's look at your source. It's got WP:MEDDATE problems and it's about something else, but you like it, so let's look at it. Specifically, let's look at the relevant footnotes in the source you recommended. The footnote for "AUD^§" says "DSM-5 criteria. Not all exact criteria are listed. This new category integrates the 2 DSM-IV disorders “alcohol abuse” and “alcohol dependence” into a single disorder for DSM-5."

That means that – according to your own recommended source – Tyler was absolutely factually correct to say that "alcohol abuse" should (sometimes) be called "alcohol use disorder". Specifically, your own recommended source directly says that "alcohol abuse" is an older concept that has been replaced by "alcohol use disorder". In other words, this whole kerfuffle is based on you being concerned about someone replacing a much older (DSM-IV from 1994) term with a newer, broader category that – again, according to your own recommended source – includes (but is not limited to) the older, narrower diagnosis. Everybody who had a diagnosis of "alcohol abuse" or "alcohol dependence" in 1994 got a (single) new label called "alcohol use disorder" when DSM-V came out in 2013.

I realize that by the time people have spent a week here, it's hard to detach and look at disputes from fresh eyes. It's probably hardest for people who have been involved in the content dispute, instead of those who saw the dispute for the first time here. But I am looking at what @Lepricavark wrote ("nobody forced him to insist that everyone else was wrong") and thinking that it might be a very bad idea to proceed from the POV that not only Tyler but also your own recommended source are wrong about the facts, and that only the non-medical editors above are right.

I think the better choice here is to get this content dispute off of ANI and hand the question over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Once the content dispute has been sorted out, if it turns out that editors conclude that your recommended source is wrong, then it's easy enough to come back here and ask for a ban proposal to be revived. But if it turns out that your recommended source is correct, then I hope you can agree that it would be stupid for the English Wikipedia to ban an editor for the crime of "insisting that everyone else was wrong" if "everyone" (I think I could four editors in that category, none of them with much experience in medical subjects?) turned out to actually be wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I saw this the other day and my heart sank. Looking again, I am encouraged that at least now there has been some sensible analysis and commentary. I too am concerned that some longstanding editors/admins perpetuate a myth that our articles are required to use the terminology of our sources (which to begin with, supposes our sources are even consistent on this, something WAID's analysis demonstrates they are not). It is a really dangerous myth that gets wheeled out typically to support reverting someone trying to improve word-choices on Wikipedia in a way an editor disagrees with. It is patently false to anyone who has paraphrased a source, or tried to make a difficult topic accessible to and engaging for general audience, or done any significant amount of copy editing and prose polishing.

AN/I is not the place to have a discussion about what terminology is preferable, interchangeable, deprecated, or which words to use in which cases but not others. Nor is it appropriate for editors to make a 100 reverts and then google some sources to try to justify why they were right and an actual subject expert was wrong. As Literaturegeek and Talpedia's comments indicate, it is not clear what terminology our articles should use, and I agree with others that there is need for a discussion on this topic in a venue where the incentive is to find how best to improve our articles, and not (for crying out loud, really) for folk to start suggesting site bans. -- Colin°^Talk 19:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it an accepted community or administrative standard to topic ban for a content dispute without even allowing for a content RfC or discussion at the relevant WP Med project? To me this topic ban proposal is premature and ill thought out. For all we know an RfC might side for TylerDurden (or against, or neutral).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Certainly there does not seem to be any community consensus that all/most of the edits made by Tyler were bad, and my impression so far is they were mass reverted solely on a "I don't like it / I didn't understand it" basis. Scrabbling around for sources to justify that mass revert looks, em, bad, especially when an offered source was so thoroughly dismantled by WAID as not saying what it was claimed to say. Even if an RFC or big discussion concluded in a way that justified some/most/all being reverted, I doesn't follow that Tyler should be topic banned (though that might be appropriate if he didn't accept the consensus and persisted afterwards). This looks much like garden variety situation where two editors disagreed on content and got hot headed about it, one of them took the other to AN/I to settle their content dispute through sanctions and mass reverts. The result, currently, is Tyler is retired, an editor who was clearly capable of producing quality medical articles.

I am really concerned that a topic ban was proposed to resolve a dispute that was far far from clear and straightforward, which quickly escalated in scope to "all of medicine" by people claiming "evidence" of wider problems (evidence that appears AFAICS to be entirely lacking wrt diffs, etc), and even a threat of a site ban. If I were an admin, I'd be recommending a few people take AN/I off their watchlists till the summer is over and they cool down. -- Colin°^Talk 07:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It appears the editor has publicly retired. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  It means nothing - people do that, and come back, all the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Not because of their choice of terms.... but instead because of their insistence that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. This is not conducive to a collaborative environment. Yes- they "retired" but should they come back- they should do so with the intent to compromise and work with their fellow editors- not steamroll them and force their own opinions. Others have called them a great contributor- but a great editor does not force their opinion or obstinately insist everyone else is wrong and they are right. A great editor debates the merits, looks to see their fellow editor's sides, and tries to find a compromise that works for everyone. Until they can do that- they are prolific, not great. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• oppose per Literaturegeek it is inappropriate to topic ban a user to settle a content dispute when there is no convincing behavioural issues--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support to both proposed substance abuse topic ban because it's been going on way too long and their responses make it seem as though they don't intend to stop. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Nightenbelle and @Hey man im josh, I'm curious about your rationales. Are you assuming that Tyler's edits are factually wrong? That the correct terminology for a medical subject is just a matter of opinion anyway, so it doesn't matter if articles use outdated, imprecise, or erroneous language? Something else?

  What I'm wondering in the end is: If you saw someone putting errors into, say, a COVID-19 article, and you know they are wrong, and you fixed them, would you be satisfied if that editor came by and told you that you should "not steamroll them and force your own opinions" and "not force their opinion or obstinately insist everyone else is wrong and they are right" and "your responses make it seem as though you don't intend to stop" correcting errors and that we need to "find a compromise" – maybe a compromise that that lets them keep half the errors in the article? Somehow, I don't think you'd be satisfied with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that Tyler is not using proper discretion in applying the terminology to the correct places. He's mass-changing all uses of "substance abuse" and "alcohol abuse" to "substance use disorder" and "alcohol use disorder", without regard for whether the specific sources used in the specific articles do the same. It's not a synonym, it's akin to finding an article saying that a person was characterized with antisocial behavior with someone who has been formally diagnosed with Antisocial personality disorder. The first is a common term used to describe someone's personality, and does not require a medical diagnosis; the second is a documented medical disorder that does require a medical diagnosis. You can't interchange the terms, because they don't mean the same thing. It is Tyler's repeated refusal to acknowledge that different words mean different things, and the distinction here is important, that is the cause of the topic ban request. --Jayron32 16:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  According to the source recommended above, AUD is the DSM-V label that replaced both the DSM-IV label "alcohol abuse" and and the DSM-IV label "alcohol dependency". These are not "exact synonyms", but they are now considered "the same condition". Large-scale changes could therefore be appropriate, just like you might update any other disease whose preferred name has changed – Asperger's to autism (also not "exact synonyms", but still now considered "the same"), MR to intellectual disability, swine flu to H1N1, leprosy to Hansen's disease, etc.

  Of course, we never have any idea how many articles an editor looked at but passed by. Actions not taken are invisible in our system. It is therefore very easy to think that he was "mass-changing all uses" even if that's not true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  They may be the same condition, but it's ignoring the gap between people who use substances and a alcohol and do not develop a disorder regarding them, and those that do. Substance use and alcohol use are both possible without disorder. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC) Follow up: I forgot to finish my statement, so I'm just editing it onto the end of my other and signing it seperately instead of using a new line. I also wonder, if the problem is the difference between DSM-IV and DSM-V definitions, the DSM-V was released 9 years ago, I'm curious to see if any of this discussion has occured on these article's talk pages regarding the change in the intervening time. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  The disputes that I've looked into involve changing the word "alcoholism" or the DSM-IV diagnostic label of "alcohol abuse" (NB: not "use") to the DSM-V label of "alcohol use disorder". None of the ones I have looked at involve non-abusive/non-disordered alcohol use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  This dif appears to be about the article subject's father. I'm not sure that was a "DSM change" argument, since the source lists it as "Alcohol use" not "alcohol use disorder". This seems to be more of a "I don't like this phrase", and the talk page discussion on it seems to jive, considering the editor stated FMSky, please explain to me why you are reverting a simple edit to change alcohol abuse, a needless stigmatizing term, to alcohol use disorder, the actual name of the condition, and when it was pointed out that the source says alcohol abuse, not alcohol abuse disorder, the editor completely ignores that point and asks the other editor to address his points, which the editor already did by pointing out that "Disorder" is unsourced. To me, that talk page comment (especially the phrase "needlessly stigmatizing") makes it seem lot like the editor is righting the great wrongs he sees with that phrase. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  As sourced to a 29-year-old book, which (not unsurprisingly) uses 29-year-old terminology.

  We have a medical source listed in this thread that says alcohol abuse is the old name for what is now called alcohol use disorder. Tyler's correct that (as a historical fact) the name was changed by the DSM partly out of concern for stigmatizing people. If our sources are concerned about stigma, why shouldn't we follow their lead? But... maybe we should follow the advice of major professional bodies and modern sources about using current medical terminology even if there's a risk that using current terminology might have an effect on the amount of stigma that some people deal with? Why would we want to preserve outdated terms that have been directly discouraged by some of our best sources?

  Consider this parallel: "bird flu" has been officially discouraged as a name for Influenza A virus subtype H5N1. About a quarter of the sources cited in that article use the older name in their headline, and more mention it in the text of the source. But can you imagine someone edit-warring to keep as many instances of the word "bird flu" in that article, or dragging someone to ANI, just because outdated, mostly non-medical, sources use the word? I can't. But that seems to be what happened here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  You literally just proved my point for me. You pointed out, these are mainly non-medical articles with non-medical sources, implying that maybe they aren't using the medical definition when they say someone abused alcohol. So your argument is to change a non-medical source statement, on a non-medical article, with a non-medical source, to reference a medical diagnosis, and the source doesn't even say that.

  That's a big no from me. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  @FrederalBacon, FMSky reverted Tyler's edits in articles like Addiction (journal), Healthcare in Texas, Suicide in Russia, Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome, Health in Poland, Alcohol abuse, Disulfiram – stop me as soon as you see something that doesn't sound medical, okay? – Reactive arthritis, Alcohol withdrawal syndrome, Narcology, High-functioning alcoholic, Causes of mental disorders, Kindling (sedative–hypnotic withdrawal), Milk borne diseases, Mental health in Singapore, Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Intention tremor, and more. At a quick glance, only a fraction of the edits involve BLPs.

  If you want to look into a specific example, have a look at this revert for Social skills. The cited source is a 14-year-old review article from a good journal. It uses the word "alcoholism". It never uses the word "abuse".

  • Tyler switched it to the modern DSM terminology that is not used in the source.
  • FMSky switched it to "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol abusers" – which is also not in that single source.

  If it's not okay for Tyler to use modern terminology that isn't in the source, why would it be okay for FMSky to use outdated terminology that isn't used in the source? If you think it is critical to stick to the sources, aren't they equally wrong?

  Let's look at one of the completely non-medical ones: this edit in The Expendables 4. This is clearly not a medical article. Tyler changed a description to say to "heavy alcohol use". FMSky changed it to "alcohol abuse". The cited source says: Not one word about alcohol. The closest we come is the next source, and wenn man ein bisschen Deutsch lesen kann, sagt nur: "Ich spiele wieder Gunner Jensen, den besoffenen Schweden". That's the closest we get to "alcohol abuse" in cited sources for the whole paragraph: The actor says "I'm still playing Gunner Jensen, the drunk Swede".

  If it's not okay for Tyler to take a source that says "the drunk Swede" and write "heavy alcohol use", why would it be okay for FMSky to turn "the drunk Swede" into "alcohol abuse"? Alcohol abuse used to be a diagnosis. Heavy alcohol use never has been. And yet when I look above, isn't everyone complaining that Tyler is supposedly the one who is inappropriately assigning medical diagnoses? Where are the complaints about FMSky doing this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  For the record, I have not offered an opinion on the TBAN, just on the idea that mass change was not constructive, for the reasons stated above. I have absolutely no doubt that some of the edits were indeed constructive. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing, you make a good point, and I see where you're coming from. Unfortunately the dispute they're currently in is not black and white, this is a matter of terminology that they're refusing to budge from based on WP:SYNTH. As others have mentioned, they're not synonyms. It's not as though they're reverting misinformation being spread, they're forcing their interpretation. Their exchange with Tamzin further up, before the topic ban proposal section, is what pushed me over the edge to voice my support.

  I think the user has made some good contributions, but Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. They're being combative and aggressive while refusing to acknowledge that the complaint against them might have some semblance of validity. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  And others are being combative and aggressive while refusing to acknowledge that the complaint against them might have some semblance of validity.

  I'm working on the content-related RFC questions now, and I'm looking at the possibility that the conclusion will be that Tyler will be vindicated on the content question. In a couple of months, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language could have a sentence that says "Use current terminology, even if the cited source uses outdated language. For example, the current term Alcohol Use Disorder should be preferred to both Alcohol abuse and Alcohol dependence, and Autism should be preferred to all of the older terms it replaced, including Asperger syndrome, Classic autism, and Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified."

  If that happens, are you going to be thinking "Huh. I voted to ban a guy for doing exactly that." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well since you asked so nice and not at all rudely (yes- sarcasm) Honestly- I don't give a damn if they are right or wrong- the way they are engaging is unacceptable. If I saw someone inserting blatantly false information I would revert once, make an effort to contact them via article and personal talk pages- and if they refused to engage I would revert once more (taking me to 2) and after that I would take it to an appropriate Wiki Project, or- depending on how blatantly false (as opposed to merely something I disagree with as this case) the information was- I would get an admin involved. I would not become a problem myself. And I certainly would not let it get to the point where people on ANI were debating banning me from a topic- I would listen to the voices telling me my approach was problematic and I would take a freaking break until I calmed down or, as I have done personally in contemporary politics, I would give myself a topic ban and avoid topics I couldn't edit calmly. So, like I said in my vote- Its not that I think they are wrong in their facts, its that the way they are going about engaging is problematic and needs to stop, and if they can't stop themselves, we need to re-direct them out of the area they are emotional about. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• This has been proposed for 9 days now, maybe an admin can read consensus, close and implement whatever needs implementing, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• I am concerned some editors have accused Tyler of trying to right great wrongs and thus eligible for a topic ban. This seems to me an example of citing a WP:UPPERCASE without reading it and assuming it helps their case. Our RGW essay is about facts and beliefs that Wikipedia states and claims, not about what are or aren't the best words to use when writing our articles. Similar mistakes are sometimes made interpreting WP:NOTLEAD as a requirement to use the same (suboptimal) language/terminology as our sources. It isn't and there is not and has never been such a requirement. Indeed we are very much encourage to write in our own words and for our audience (which is often quite a different one to the audience of our sources). Our facts cannot be "original" but our words are ours to choose. WAID has demonstrated that some have incorrectly assumed the existing (and reverted to) text was using the same terminology as the source cited, and it should be embarrassing for those supporting the topic ban on these grounds that many times FMSky's reverts also failed to use the same terminology as the sources. Are we to topic ban both of them? Is it so bad for an editor to replace "needlessly stigmatizing" outdated terms with modern ones? If an editor writing text using the language Tyler did would often have been perfectly in line with policy and good practise, what really is the problem? If someone went around being "needlessly stigmatizing" in their edits, wouldn't we think it is instead them that needs to go to ANI?

There's quite a lot of undiffed claims made above that don't seem at all supported by the evidence. Indeed the evidence is shifting in the direction that FMSky's 100 or so reverts made Wikipedia worse. Someone above supported the block with a claim "because of their insistence that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong". This ridiculously over-exaggerates "they disagree with X about Y" into "they disagree with anyone about everything". Is someone, a subject-expert indeed, unable to defend themselves and their edits against hostile editors who very much started this discussion with a level of subject knowledge that could be summarised as "I've just found that Wikipedia has two articles on the subject, hold on a sec while I read them and Google some sources to support my mass reverts". -- Colin°^Talk 13:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

In case anyone hadn't noticed, TylerDurden8823 quit Wikipedia 10 days ago. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• And they could come back tomorrow, so it has no bearing on this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢

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

User:Bedford

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

Can an administrator look at User:Bedford? They have a few Neo-Confederate userboxes on their userpage.

Here is one example: User:Bedford/userboxes/User Confederate TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Woah, according to this list, Bedford is a former administrator. TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User has only made 10 edits since 2016 and half of those were responding to someone posting something on their talk page. If we ignore them, they'll go away on their own.--v/r - TP 01:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

unfortunately the tone of their responses at MfD doesn't indicate any such likelihood. Definitely does not inspire collaborative efforts. Star Mississippi 02:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A former admin who was removed for cause by Jimbo Wales 14(!) years ago. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this user is a concern as of now. They've made few edits in recent years, and from their user page it appears they once had a somewhat distinguished career (They are a Senior Editor II and have multiple barnstars). I just think we should keep an eye on them for any signs of future disruptive editing. No action needs to be taken. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

a username that could be read as problematic with obnoxious, offensive userboxes that they're calling @Dronebogus "childish" for nominating. Multiple barnstars and being a "Senior Editor II" are frankly irrelevant. Star Mississippi 02:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that barnstars and editor awards are completely irrelevant, the fact that they haven't really edited in years, except to defend these UBXs that have no chance of survival it appears, absolutely is relevant. I'm not sure what the desired outcome here is. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything we can do, but I was instead making clear that we don't really need to look for future disruption. It's already here and hiding in plain sight. Star Mississippi 02:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

To say the name "could be KKK inspired" is an uncalled for stretch. My personal first name (that I haven't disclosed) happens to be shared with a confederate general, but that doesn't make my name KKK inpired. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that his authored images state Bedford is part of his legal name. I'd recommend a retraction of the allegation of the KKK inspired name. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Your AGF is stronger than mine, but I have rephrased. If there's specific syntax for a redaction, please consider this my permission to edit my comment as I'm about to log off. Star Mississippi 03:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that Bedford also displays this userbox on their userpage, which has a fascist symbol. Thank Dronebogus for noticing and nominating that for deletion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Bedford was desysopped by Jimmy Wales in 2008 after a similar debate. I think that was the last active intervention by Jimmy in enwiki management. I don't think much has changed since then with Bedford, but he hasn't terribly active since then either. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indef Bedford There is no place on Wikipedia for sympathizers with racism and fascism. This user is clearly NOTHERE, and their recent edits show it. For example, editing in support of the "war of northern aggression" myth [19], and responding to deletion requests with personal attacks. Consider KEEP I want to have a warning before someone who clearly needs to compensate for certain..deficiencies...tries to delete all my hard work. I don't follow commons, so I have no warning. Please get a life, and stop spamming my emails with all your silly deletion requests [20]. Not to mention today's repeated personal attacks at one of the MfDs regarding their racist userboxes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Recent edits? Aren't those from like 2014 and 2015? Andre🚐 03:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  it's a pattern of editing going back a decade+. We don't need to wait another year for their inevitable disruption by way of tirades and outward racism. PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, it's not a "pattern of editing going back a decade." It's some edits FROM a decade ago. To suggest that someone with ten mainspace edits over the last eight years is going to "inevitably" disrupt anything is little short of hysteria. Ravenswing 03:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Considering these are all within their last 50 edits, yes, I believe "recent" is appropriate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am in no way defending this user or their edits, but I don't think you can be judgedindeffed for something from 7 years ago. And I agree his messages are uncooperative. I have 0 sympathy for his views, but I can't agree that these are "recent," that's misleading at best. Andre🚐 03:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Have you actually looked at their diffs in the MFD, from today? PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Have you actually looked at their diffs in the MFD, from today? PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I saw the term "childish" and repeated some kind of counterfactual confederate troll b.s. Yeah it's offensive, so delete his userboxes and he'll probably go away again. Blocks and bans are not supposed to be punitive. We don't have to tolerate him if he starts making bad edits. It looks like he hasn't even edited in years. As someone with zero love for racism or fascism of any stripe, I don't see the argument. Delete his personal attacks and racist content, and if he persists in re-adding them, then a block might be merited. Not if he's just sitting there for years doing nothing. Andre🚐 03:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The editor was on those MfDs within 3 hours of them being posted. I'm not sure where the inactivity argument comes from, a 3 hour response time to an MfD doesn't indicate inactivity to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Huh? But before that the editor had no other edits for ages? They undoubtedly got an email of the talk page notification. Andre🚐 03:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  If that is the case, his immediate response to a talk page notification was to immediately accuse editors of ignorance and childishness. I still don't see how that is a reason to NOT indef him. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• indef I'm with TAOT. Wikipedia has no room for people who openly support racism (and whos response to any criticism is "Get a life", something Bedford has said often.) Not to mention Wikipedia is very much not the place for revisionist history, nor can we trust an editor who is so wildly out of touch with facts and reality. PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indef Support indef, per these three diffs, clearly WP:NOTHERE. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Indef, hopefully it's not an unpopular opinion that neo-confederates shouldn't be Wikipedia editors. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose indef - If he's not edit-warring, vandalising pages or pushing a political PoV on pages? then don't ban. Merely remove the userbox-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• No ban/block at this time per my comments above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly warn and issue civility warnings to the user. Andre🚐 03:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would support a warning as described by Andrevan Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose indef: I take a back seat to no one in my disgust at this fellow's politics. But Andre is entirely right. This guy isn't an active editor. It's been a decade since he has been. This is a bunch of outrage for the sake of outrage. Absolutely, delete his offensive infoboxes (the MfDs of which are well on their way), but indeffing him for no better reason than he's a cheap and convenient target -- and made some objectionable edits many years ago -- plays rather dramatically into the hands of those who just love to paint Wikipedia as the haunt of extremist and intolerant liberals. The easiest way to avoid being smeared as a kneejerk lynch mob is not to be one. Ravenswing 03:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  An indef is preventative. It prevents further disruption from this user, which is all that leaving him free to edit will accomplish. He has no intention of building an encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  He has no intention of EDITING this encyclopedia ... as plainly witnessed by the plain fact that he hasn't been doing so. This isn't merely an exercise in bullying, it's a pretty dern pointless one. I want a far, far better reason to indef someone than to pound my chest as I gaze into the mirror and chortle "Hah, I got another red state bastard!" Ravenswing 03:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose User is retired and not in the public WP consciousness, and the only reason it has re-entered public consciousness is because people decided to rustle through said user's userpage and the user has jousted a bit in the subsequent MFD. If the purpose actually was to not advertise the user's political beliefs, it would be obvious what the appropriate tactical/strategic course of action would be Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef - This is exactly what WP:NONAZIS is about. --MuZemike 04:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Blank the userpage, delete associated userboxen, and remove the polemic material - otherwise do not block. The polemic shit can and should be deleted, but as they're hardly editing I don't see any real point to 86'ing them at this juncture. Now, mind you, if he decides to reinsert it, then by all means put the vengeful gaze of $deity on them, but I'd rather not block a user who's hardly editing anyway for an indef without trying lesser measures first to address any disruption, and it seems to me the easiest route is to blank off the offending material. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Concur with blank+delete+remove Andre🚐 04:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  +1. Lectonar (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I second that. Quandarie04:05, 2024-11-11

• weak support for indef he’s retired from productive editing and now only wants to be an uncivil nuisance to anyone “triggered” by his extremely offensive userboxes. Also, his last edit before the UBX nominations was calling an LGBT-related invite “garbage”, so add likely homophobia to list of project-incompatible beliefs. Dronebogus (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose indef for now, but could lean towards indef depending on their behavior with regards to the MfD discussions. Otherwise, basically the action Jeske outlined above. User is inactive so an indef would be strictly punitive, not preventative. If they step out of line (if they come back) after this, then yeah nuke 'em, but it's a non-issue at this point. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block at this time. Blocks are to stop disruption of the encyclopedia. We should not carry out ideological purges. This editor has made only 18 edits in the last seven years, but they made 13,347 edits in 2008. This editor may hold views that most of us (including me) consider reprehensible, but they are not disrupting the encyclopedia at this time. They are effectively retired. If they start actively disrupting the encyclopedia, then I would definitely support an indefinite block. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block, essentially per Cullen328. Problematic userboxes can be deleted by consensus (and I see a couple of discussions are happening on those lines). But if Bedford is not editing to push his political views, and is not harming or disrupting the encyclopedia, there's nothing that we need a block to prevent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and Ravenswing said it well too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support community ban from the project, after having seen his odious Facebook utterances. (And yes, I know that's off-wiki, but it shows he's such a repulsive individual that he needs to be shown the door.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328 and GoodDay. — Czello 08:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• First of all, we should just ban issues-based userboxen already. Secondly, I agree with Cullen and particularly Curbon7. If Bedford decides to continue spending his time insulting people who take exception to his support for an organization devoted to upholding the enslavement of Black people as chattel, then I imagine someone will quietly indef as NOTHERE and that will be that. (And I'm fine with being that someone.) But he's not (yet) at such a level of disruption to warrant that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

My eyes got a workout for all the rolling. You have an obvious user just wanting to find reasons to be offended, and instead of telling him to cool it you are going after me. The userboxes in question are at least 14 years old so obviously there has been no issue until someone desperately needed them to be one. The people wanting to think I'm fascist are the ones who act the most like them as they are the ones who can't handle anyone who disagrees with them. I saw someone complain about another userbox I had which I did not create, but I assume that icon was not there originally there as I do not remember that icon. Yes, I was an admin before it was removed because I stood up for the DYK process when some women couldn't handle a factoid that reminded them that men find some women attractive. This is just a witchhunt that rewards those who are looking for reasons to be offended. You already damaged WP by chasing productive users like me away; do you really want to keep the process going?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 10:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Bedford: So, I know this is reaching back a decade, but it's the sort of statement that, no matter how long ago it was made, is concerning, and I don't see that it was addressed at the time: Do you stand by this comment saying that you wished to "recommend to [Jimbo Wales] Dr. Kevorkian's successor" [link added]—i.e. that Jimbo Wales should kill himself? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That easily should’ve been ban material right there Dronebogus (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indef Bedford, regardless of their past merits and recent level of activity, and according to these three diffs, this homophobic remark, as well as WP:NONAZIS and WP:NOTHERE. But, above all – there should be no place for neo-Confederates on Wikipedia. —Sundostund (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

off topic discussion

Sundostund, describing this diff as "this homophobic remark", is stretching it too much. It is a removal of a massposted message. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC) חוקרת, there is nothing wrong in a removal of a massposted message. The issue is about describing that LGBT–themed message as a "garbage" in the edit summary. —Sundostund (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC) A massposted message. You could see it in the way you frame it, but it can also be seen otherwise. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Yes, I certainly see it in that way. At the same time, I am letting other users to make their own conclusions about it. —Sundostund (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Taken in context it’s very likely homophobic Dronebogus (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC) If Bedford took onus with all auto-posted messages, I could see giving a pass. There are hundreds of such automated messages on Bedford's talk, and he hasn't removed them. He was invited to a different Wiki event in Indy he felt no need to delete, just a month later. Certainly indicates a problem with THE message, not A message. With that said, I don't see that being a cause to indef, there appear to be much better reasons than potential homophobia. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Deleting unsolicited messages on a user's talk page is now evidence of "homophobia"? If that's the definition we're using, we're going to need to get a lot more banhammers... Buffs (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Like I said, if he took onus with all of them, I'd see it being a pass. But his talk page suggests he only took onus with the pride invite. Which, as I said, I don't think is enough to block him for anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC) So he only took issue with the Pride invite. Maybe he thinks that open sexual displays of any kind are inappropriate (which is what many/most of these festivals either entail or endorse). If you post an unsolicited invite to my talk page regarding sexual topics, I'm going to delete as well. That isn't homophobic...sexually conservative, to be sure, but hardly homophobic. Buffs (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC) The level of WP:AGF required here is beyond the standard of reasonable doubt. He thinks trans people are worthy of mockery because he thinks they’re ugly, not because of his “sexually conservative” values. Dronebogus (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC) I would say that there's a very thin line between claiming to be “sexually conservative” and defending homophobia; various claims of "conservative” values often are bywords for something much sinister. Also, his stance on trans people is just deplorable. —Sundostund (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC) @Buffs: it seems very hard to me to reconcile "sexually conservative" with the DYK Bedford proposed [21] then got desysoped over after they wheel warred to try and keep it on the main page, talked about feminazis who were jealous of attractive women etc; and then followed up after their de-sysop with repeatedly saying they were gangraped. Unless you mean they're opposed to it when it involves gay people but are fine with it otherwise, in which case that is indeed homophobic. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Guys thats socially conservative... Sexually conservative is when you believe that coitus is the central element of sexuality which does overlap with social conservatism but unless any of you have been to bed with Bedford or have a source which says he isn't into oral, manual, anal, or kinky non-coitus based sex you need to say socially conservative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Sex sells. Las Vegas is based on that. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but it will grab attention. Likewise, it was also factual and had community approval, so it should have stood rather than be unilaterally removed (unless I'm misunderstanding the situation...if he was undoing multiple Admins after a WP:AN discussion, that's different). We've done PLENTY of front page things that were designed to grab headlines/attention and I don't see anything wrong with this particular selection. I've seen nothing about "gangraped" at all. If so, that's indeed abhorrent (links would be appreciated). I think that his choice of actions was inappropriate (wheel warring) as were his choice of words to describe why he was demoted (wheel warring and name calling). From what I can see, I think those who took it down were also in the wrong when they unilaterally took it down as it was an agreed-upon DYK. I can't say Jimbo was wrong as he, at the time, had the power to revoke such access unilaterally and at his own discretion. I don't think it was wise and he should have let the community handle it (they would likely have rapidly come to the same conclusion), but that's really not a matter of discussion here. As for the Gay Pride parade, I'm personally opposed to such promiscuous/prominent sexual behavior of all kinds. This would include such open displays of sex, the sort that are prominent at gay pride parades, free love festivals, public displays of sex positivity, and a number of other sex exhibits that are available in public locations. It doesn't matter to me if it is heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, or any flavor of LGBTQPIA+!? That sort of behavior should be reserved for non-public settings and I'm not a fan of them...ALL of them. That said, I also completely support it being legal and they should be free to do it! Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it should be illegal. Public expression is free speech in America and, though I disagree with them, I will fight to the death for their right to do so. You want to define that as socially conservative? Fine. "Conservative with sexual matters". Anything else? Fine. It all means the same thing that I clearly intended and described. Lastly, please don't mistake my support for process/procedure for complete support of his actions. Buffs (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Did you really just claim that Wikipedia:Meetup/Indianapolis/Wiki_Loves_Pride_2022 will "include open displays of sex" ? You think sex is going to happen in the IUPUI University Library's Ashby Browsing Room? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC) The editathon focused on improving articles ABOUT those events. Art + Feminism was also a sponsor of the event, a decidedly leftist organization. My entire point is that he didn't want to participate and thought it was "garbage". Equating that with "HOMOPHOBIA!!!!" is just people jumping to conclusions. Buffs (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Actually its *your* words Buffs which are being equated with homophobia, because they're ridiculously homophobic... They're also just wrong, I've been adjacent to a number of pride events in my life (one of the largest in the country goes right down the street under my office window) and "open displays of sex" just isn't whats happening. You're really on a roll here: promoting Nazi ideology, Confederate apologism, almost comically stupid homophobia... Why do you keep digging this hole? Do you want to be indeffed as well? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC) @Buffs: You do know that the "A" in LGBTQPIA+!? stands for Asexual, right? Do you know how silly it sounds for you to suggest a pride event which includes asexuals (which, oh hey, that includes me) would involve open displays of sex? With that kind of description, I really don't think you really seem to understand what a pride parade actually.. is? That's also just straight up ignoring the fact that this was an advertisement for an editathon. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Oh lordy...we're really going to go down that road? Perhaps I meant "A" for "Ally" or "Androgeny" or... This right here is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. I'm trying to be inclusive and the only thing you can focus on is how I allegedly (OOH! Maybe it was "Allegedly"!) got a single letter "wrong". And because I did, that somehow "proves" I don't understand what pride a pride parade is (likewise, the editathon focused on editing such articles on those topics, ergo, they are involved). If you think that proves I'm not "woke" enough, you're going to take anything/everything I say the way you want to interpret it. You are going to see what you want to see and discard the rest. A discussion with you beyond this is pointless. Buffs (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC) @Buffs: The A stands for Asexual. It does not stand for anything else (the pamphlet you linked does not seem reliable for this information). I never said your weird description somehow "proves" [you] don't understand what pride a pride parade is. I also never said you got a single letter "wrong" (because you didn't?). Lastly, I never said you weren't "woke" enough. All of these phrases includes quotes as if you are quoting me, but you are not. I never said any of these words nor does anything I say even remotely come close to meaning anything close to them. What I said was just trying to inform you that the LGBT community is composed of a large group of people who do not enjoy sex. You really don't seem to really get that, and you are being very weird about this discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC) I would make a note of order here that this has strayed significantly from the topic at hand, and would caution editors involved in this whole above discussion, myself included, that this has, in fact, become a topic of discussion completely independent of the Bedford ban, and this has now been taken in a direction that, if continued and heated, could wind up with a whole lot more sanctions being levied against people this ANI originally wasn't about. Maybe this isn't the argument we want to be having, or should be having, under this ANI. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC) If you're going to accuse people of being a homophobe, at least have the common decency to say it to their face. I've deleted that unsigned remark. Part of this discussion is a very weak accusation of homophobia. As such, it is not off-topic. Buffs (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef as the nomination of an indef on the basis of (what seems to be primarily) ideology smacks a bit of 'user has incorrect opinions.' I've seen WP:NONAZIS brought up above but there is a reason that NONAZIS is an essay, not a policy. I understand that this nomination is said to also be on the grounds of disruption, but I find the evidence for this is fairly weak. A warning about attitude may be in order, but an indef is disproportionate. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• I haven’t heard the name 'User:Bedford' for a long time, I remember when he was, I think, the last admin to be desysoped by Jimbo using his Godlike powers back in the day. Bedford has contributed very little for so long - a de facto retirement, I guess - that it shouldn’t be any big deal to him whether the user boxes go. I suggest he be left to return to his 'retirement'. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose indef - Indef blocks are intended to stop imminent and ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, not to express our collective outrage or to tear down Confederate statues and monuments.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  He’s disrupting Wikipedia right now, every single recent comment is basically just trolling to “own the libs”, which is plainly WP:NOTHERE Dronebogus (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose indef. Bedford isn't editing, hadn't really edited this year until replying to the userbox deletion nominations. Indeffing will achieve nothing positive, and would be seen as by Bedford as a "badge of honor". The userboxes themselves will be gone soon. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Mr. Crenshaw, as evidenced by the contents of his userpage and the social media accounts linked therefrom, is not the least bit coy about his political opinions and seems to have held them for years without much deviation. If he continues to let this account lie dormant after this episode, he will be swiftly re-forgotten. If he doesn't, he will get himself banned, and then re-forgotten. Same difference. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I stood up for the DYK process when some women couldn't handle a factoid that reminded them that men find some women attractive weren't you desysopped by Jimbo for your misogyny too? And yet here you are, 14 years later still doing the same shit. If that isn't a pattern, I don't know what is. This community's absolute unwillingness to deal with homophobia, misogyny and racism is actually astounding. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Wikipedia does not sanction for thoughtcrimes. Sanctions are reserved for actions that are counter to collaborative participation. The last thing we need to be doing is sanctioning someone for simply have a minority point of view, no matter how offensive someone might find it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NONAZIS begs to differ. Allowing rampant misogyny like I've pointed out, along with racism and homophobia are more than just "minority opinions." They're toxic and violent ideologies that don't belong on an encyclopedia and are inherently at odds with building an encyclopedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is an essay that doesn't enjoy wide spread acceptance. There is a HUGE difference in someone claiming they want to preserve parts of their heritage that aren't about racism, and someone saying "Hitler was right". I'm not saying I agree with him, but currently, as he has presented the information, it isn't breaking any policy. We don't block people just because we disagree with them. It is a dangerous precedent to start blocking people for ideas rather than actions, and it isn't supported in policy. We block for actions, not thoughts. If he comes back and spews racist ideas, I would be the first to block him, but no one has presented proof he has, ever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Actually it does, you can run a quarry for yourself to see the numerous WP:NONAZI blocks. Confederecy isn't "heritage" - that's bullshit fed to kids about the lie that is the "War of Northern Aggression" and it appears this conspiracy theory has even reached the depths of Wikipedia editors. So is racism where your blocking ability ends? The blatant misogyny isn't enough? PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Nevermind the fact that his ardent defense of the confederacy here and elsewhere is at odds with actual proven fact, but I guess that also doesn't matter for Wikipedia? PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Where exactly is his "ardent defense of the confederacy"? Buffs (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NONAZIS is not a policy, just someone's essay. And I'm not even convinced Bedford can be called a Nazi. — Czello 13:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agree entirely with Dennis Brown's assessment. — Czello 13:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW - Who goes around or would want to go around, checking over other editors' userpages to find something offensive? There must be better ways, to spend ones' time. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would argue that extends to someone who comments on every single ANI thread. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm happy that I'm not one of those who comments on every single ANI thread. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indef So what if Bedford isn't actively contributing to mainspace anymore? If he was, then I'd say that might actually be a reason against indef since it would show he's capable of productively contributing to the project. Since he isn't doing that... Why give this guy a platform? What is there to gain with keeping someone like Bedford around?
  The community made a mistake by not kicking Bedford out a decade ago. It's time we correct for that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block - unless and until somebody can demonstrate that the user has been putting the level of horseshit on his userpage into articles or talk pages (and yes it is 100% horseshit, believing idea that the Confederacy wasnt racist is IMO prima facie evidence that one lacks the competence to edit anything related to the American Civil War, modern race relations, or nearly anything about America and its history). There are lots of editors I think are racist, or homophobic, or anti-whatever. Until their editing shows that however that is a personal opinion of mine that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Also, a bit shocked how he had these userbox when he ran for a successful RFA and they werent even mentioned. What a time 2008 was, maybe I could have been an admin after all. nableezy - 16:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well this is going back a ways, but this certainly raises the eyebrows. An editor placing in the mainspace that it was the War of Northern Aggression and that the Civil War is non-neutral is so close to a KKK talking point that I seriously wonder where WP:NONAZIS comes in to play. Even if it was 14 years ago, would support a wide ranging topic ban on anything related to the Civil War or modern US politics. Including any revert on his userpage of anything removed of it. nableezy - 16:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The "War of Northern Aggression" is a common phrase in the South. Equating that with support for the KKK is a HUGE step too far. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Putting in the mainspace text referring to the Civil War as the title "the War of Northern Aggression" and claiming the term "Civil War" (a completely anodyne phrase that means a war between opposing forces in the same country) is POV is very clearly pushing KKK level bullshit in encyclopedia articles. If you cant see that then I question your ability to edit anything related to American politics, past or present, too. nableezy - 21:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  This quality of argumentation is pretty standard for Buffs, see e.g. [22]. JBL (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Valid question whether he or GoodDay are adding anything beyond bytes to this discussion. Star Mississippi 01:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: Well in GoodDay's case it's a chronic problem; my request nine months ago didn't help, but perhaps a polite word from an administrator? --JBL (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  GoodDay and Buffs are playing devil’s advocate for the sake of the argument. Even the non-CBAN/block voters aren’t exactly on Bedford’s side. Dronebogus (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  JBL, you're already following my every movement after you've been asked to stop harassing me. I could argue that your continued actions and disparaging remarks are a (continued) violation of WP:CIVIL/WP:HARASS. I have 2 instances of discussions you joined in the last 24 hours ONLY because I was in there first. Kindly back off. Buffs (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Listen I know you like to fantasize about me but even so you're already following my every movement is a little over the top for a public forum like this, don't you think? JBL (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I do not use that terminology, however, it is in common use in the South. It's hardly "KKK-level bullshit". I see no evidence he said "Civil War" is POV pushing and, in fact, he uses/used it on his user page. Seems more than a little contradictory. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support community ban, very clearly NOTHERE. nableezy - 19:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose indef at the current time, I see no indication that they're going to significantly participate in WP in the future so this feels more punitive than preventative. I must admit this is a bit of an odd (some could perhaps righty say wikilawyer-like) position but if they do choose to come back in a substantive sense I'd support an immediate indef. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why the idea is "Let an editor who only pops in to cause problems stay around". The years of inactivity, but then immediate activity (within 3 1/2 hours to remove a pride invitation, within 3 hours to dispute the MfDs) doesn't suggest he's that far gone, and the fact that his comments since the MfDs started have been to call people childish and ignorant, and advocating no one take Wiki seriously as a result of the MfDs doesn't support the idea of keeping him around. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• I was going to sit this one out, on the grounds that someone who edits so infrequently can be causing very little disruption. However, Bedford's own post above has persuaded me to comment. His contributions over the few years have been a handful of gnomish mainspace edits, an edit to their user talk page with what an edit summary that sure as hell looks like homophobia, some insulting comments at MfD, and a post here which is both misogynistic and dismissive of people's concerns: I view that as a net negative. As such, I would weakly support an indef block, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter unless he becomes active again. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• With respect to the thoughtful comments above, I have blocked Bedford indefinitely. As I noted on their talk page, they not only admit that they're not here to build an encyclopedia, but they also maintain views which are inherently incompatible with being a member of the community. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Although I did not support the block above, I will endorse this action now as a valid closure of this discussion. Andre🚐 17:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not going to challenge this, but I think it would have been best for the community to decide whether or not Bedford should be blocked rather than you exclusively. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  As someone who supported the block, I agree with this. I would support removing the block until consensus can be reached. This is a WP:CBAN discussion, and the community hasn't truly come to a consensus yet. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Support Indef I agree with MJL that the years of inactivity actually cut towards an indef rather than against. If he'd been usefully contributing to Wikipedia recently then whether to indef him for defending a bunch of racist userboxes would be a complicated issue. But he hasn't, so it's not. Loki (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Indef Per Praxidicase. A firm no to bending over backwards for accomodating racists. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ravenswing, Cullen328, and GoodDay. Buffs (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note TheresNoTime (talk · contribs) has indef'd Bedford for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Is this any better/worse than a Hezbollah userbox? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to run that one back again, complete with misrepresentation of it being a "Hezbollah userbox". nableezy - 17:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If it’s not a Hezbollah box then why is it just coincidentally green and yellow? Dronebogus (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Can read the aforementioned MFD if youd like. The userbox is about Wikipedia, but again if youd like to raise it in a place where it isnt off-topic whataboutism then feel free. nableezy - 00:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:CBAN, discussions MUST be kept open 24 hours before sanctions are applied. For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. This discussion was open less than 24 hours, there is no clear consensus, and a block has been applied. I ask for the block to be removed and the discussion to continue, the block was clearly premature. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree this thread has not reached a consensus on a community ban, nor reached the required timeframe. My block was based on the reasoning I left on the user's talk page, much as I'd have blocked the user if I found these edits while recent change patrolling. Discussion can (and should!) continue here, and the block can be upgraded to a ban should consensus arise. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  You said "With respect to the thoughtful comments above I have blocked Bedford indefinitely", meaning you are taking this ANI as the reason for the block. You listed this discussion as "With respect to" as for a reason for the block. It appears you imposed the block to enforce a CBAN, which has not taken effect through consensus yet. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think she meant that while respectfully noting the opposition above, TNT made, as an independent action by an uninvolved admin, a normal indef-block that is not a community ban and one that any admin can make if they think it necessary. And if there is consensus to unblock then Im sure she will abide by that, but as of right now theres a normal admin block and no CBAN. nableezy - 18:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Listing this ANI as the reason for the block sure as heck makes it look like it's a CBAN. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

See below — I did not list this thread as the reason for the block. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Many blocks happen as a result of ANI, near immediately, with ANI cited in the block reason and are not CBANS. No one has proposed a CBAN either. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No one has proposed a CBAN? So we're discussing (voting, debating, trying to garner consensus in the commmunity) whether or not to indef him as a matter of routine discussion? Formal or not, this is a CBAN discussion. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Commas are important, no? I meant that I respect the thoughtful comments here, but that my block was for the reasons I left on the user's talk page. In that message, I again give due respect to the community process, but enact a block for the reasons given. Lastly, I do not mention this thread in my block reason recorded in the log — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Commas are indeed important, and I understand now, I still feel the block is premature and circumvents the community process here. We aren't done discussing it, but we are now, because you blocked them. And I support the block, I just think this was way too fast. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

collapsing lengthy digression about Nazis etc. that adds little to the overall discussion; editors can make their own judgement here

Absolutely. This is an absurd rush to judgement and a clear violation of procedure. Nominating someone's user boxes for deletion and then indef blocking him when he defends them is absurd. I se no evidence of racism at all other than "symbols" (in fact, just one symbol) which, at least arguably, has more than one meaning which can be benign and another that can be historical. Buffs (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Because debating whether or not a confederate editor should be blocked is the ideal use of editor time. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC) If you are going to accuse someone of being a "confederate" as others have accused him of being a Nazi/racist, you should certainly have evidence to back it up. Buffs (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC) His own off-wiki social media page (which he links himself on his user page, this is information he puts out there himself) identifies himself as "Confederate American". Just saying. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC) He also calls himself a Sphenisciform (a flightless bird), so I don't think that can be taken as a clear sign of "support of racism/nazisim". In fact, his userbox seemed to indicate he wanted to distance himself from racism/slavery (the exact opposite of what he seemed to be advocating). Now, I think he's wrong/immature, but I think that's a VERY poor reason for a block. Buffs (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC) I only referred to him as a confederate, as that is what he is, and proof of such has been displayed to you. I never said anything about the two "isms" you mentioned. WP:NONAZIS is broader in scope than just nazis. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC) That appears to be a reference to his lineage: a descendant of Confederates. When he openly decries slavery, he's not exactly endorsing the Confederacy considering that was its aim (to keep slavery legal). 01:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Buffs (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC) @Buffs: you should keep up. Have you even read his own description of himself on Twitter? —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC) You should keep up...that's what I'm referring to Buffs (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC) So then you're aware that he openly describes himself as a confederate-american. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Have you actually looked at his edits...or his userpage? He has repeatedly touted his "confederate heritage." Is it ok for someone to be proud of their "KKK heritage"? "Nazi heritage"? PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Or perhaps TNT can clarify with a block for misogyny too, or is that ok? Because it's very clear in the diffs by Bedford on this very thread and I quote: I stood up for the DYK process when some women couldn't handle a factoid that reminded them that men find some women attractive PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC) How is a subjective assessment of attractiveness "misogyny"? I think lots of people are physically unattractive for a variety of reasons. Most people do. Buffs (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Enlighten yourself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Facts are not misogyny. While I find "that after Melina stripped Torrie Wilson to win a 'bra & panties match' at The Great American Bash (2005), referee Candice Michelle stripped Melina and herself as well?" unnecessarily trivial and didn't need to be on the main page, I don't think it's ironclad evidence that Bedford's a "misogynist" in perpetuity. The fact is that The Great American Bash (2005) happened and so did the events it described. As such, it's a fact, not misogyny. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Just look at his twitter feed and FB page before you keep going. I get trying to ensure this remains a place where uncomfortable ideas are tolerated, but seriously, spend 5 minutes scrolling through either and then decide if this is who you want to defend to the very end. nableezy - 19:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC) At this point, I'm defending no one but myself. You are conflating "defending a principle" with "defending a person". An attorney who defends a murderer is not synonymous with advocating the act of murder. I never said I agree with this person. I can (and have) defended those on BOTH sides of the political aisle for the same retribution. Buffs (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC) This isnt a court of law, you arent this users legal representative, and this isnt retribution. And you have to be aware that the impression one gets when you keep defending racists and misogynists and fascists that at the very least racism, misogyny, and fascism are not disqualifying attributes to be an editor in good standing here. And yes, you are defending considerably more than yourself rn. Look before you leap is all Im saying. If you still want to leap, be my guest. nableezy - 19:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC) I'm defending principles, not racism, misogyny, or fascism (where the **** do you get that in any way...I don't think you think "fascism" means what you think it means and I see zero evidence presented that he's of that ilk). Assess him based on his merits as you see fit, but I believe in people being judged (on ANY side) for what they've done, not what others think they are thinking or might do. If you think I support racism, despite the fact I reject it, I can't help you. Accusing someone of "misogyny" over something that was NSFW, but objectively true...I'm saying the facts don't line up with the accusation. Fascism? You've completely lost me. Buffs (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Many in the South view their "confederate heritage" as tied to their pride in their relative's service to their state, not what the state did or stood for. Conflating support for their service with support for their state's choices is misleading. That doesn't mean that his statements couldn't be made much more clear. His user box could easily have been modified to show the south and redone some of the phrasing to mean something much more in line with that. Of course, no, KKK or Nazi heritage are things that people generally shun. But Confederate heritage is not so stark. There are many nuances to that. FWIW, I had relatives fight for the Union and I have no love for the institution the Confederacy was founded to preserve (slavery) nor the subsequent racism that followed in the post-war century. I completely support the Civil Rights act and amendments that were passed to curtail this injustice. Buffs (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Support of the confederacy is no different than support of someone's ancestors being Nazis who died in WW2. And Bedford has made their feelings on people of color very clear in their edits, as well as their linked social media. WP:NONAZIs isn't just about actual Nazis. We shouldn't subjugate editors to violent rhetoric for the sake of trying to appease editors who have demonstrated by their own word that they are not here to collaborate or build an encyclopedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC) But also, sure, everyone here should be aware that Bedford thinks we are all "mentally ill children" also, so... PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC) I don't see "support of the confederacy" in anything you've posted. I see that he's a descendant. There is a VAST difference between being a Nazi and someone who fought for Germany in WWII. One is a political party who used a country to impose their will. The other is the army that was used to do that. The two are not synonymous. Many former Nazis distanced themselves once they saw where things were going. Others were proud of the work they did while working for the Nazis (example: German scientists and Rocket Engineers), but had no love for the Nazi's beliefs. Some have conflated that pride in work and what was done to advance science as "pro-Nazi", but there are nuances that should be considered. Buffs (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC) The irony of someone who has not bothered to look at their history here, their userpage, their actual edits and responses in this very thread while also trying to mansplain to me what is and is not misogyny is not lost on me. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who doesn't seem to care about facts when presented with them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Any time someone ends a discussion with "you're mansplaining" (my opinion doesn't count because of my gender...the irony is flowing in here...), I think it's pretty safe to say that the argument has been "won". You haven't presented facts. You've presented nothing more than conjecture and accusations. Buffs (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC) And you've presented a whole lot of "some Nazis were good people, actually." You might want to just back off and drop this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC) I said Germans, not Nazis. If you can't make that distinction, perhaps you should let the adults talk. It sure is easy to just lump everyone together and claim moral superiority isn't it? Buffs (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC) You also said Confederates not Southerners... So which is it? Are you defending Nazi/Confederate heritage or German/Southern heritage? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC) The only time "Confederates" was when I said "descendant of Confederates" when explaining his lineage. "Lineage" (who was in your family) is not synonymous with "heritage" (a culture). To be 100% clear, I am not defending Nazi/Confederate heritage or the associated culture. Such advocacy should be stricken from WP. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Then strike it "Many in the South view their "confederate heritage" as tied to their pride in their relative's service to their state, not what the state did or stood for." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC) What exactly should I strike? What in that statement (which includes a quote) is objectively not true? What in that sentence implies that I endorse such views? Let's put it another way: consider: "Many Muslim extremists believe their troubles are caused by Jews and attack them based on these beliefs. The Nazis also felt similarly." Both sentences are true (albeit simplistic). I don't endorse such views nor do I agree with either of these factions of humanity. Simply writing a fact doesn't mean I endorse/agree with it. You're making a lot of assumptions. Buffs (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Christ, you're just going to keep digging deeper, aren't you? You're making a lot of assumptions Have you even read what you're typing? Because, holy fuck, are you making a lot of assumptions yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Now that just sounds like just following orders. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Agreed, he appears to be invoking the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Not at all. Many aircraft, mechanical, and aerospace personnel had nothing to do with the Holocaust and did not support it when they found out about it. The US openly admitted German people (including scientists and soldiers/airmen/sailors) after WWII if they openly renounced Nazism; most never accepted it in the first place. I think most people in the US support our troops/veterans (polls show they are among the 5 most trusted professions). When our soldiers were sent to Gulf War/Etc, they recognized the soldiers were sent without regard for their personal wishes. Regardless of whether we supported the President at the time, we supported the troops and recognized that they served their country and its ideals, not necessarily the leader or political party in power. The same was true of the German Army/Air Force/Navy. In fact, many of them served leadership roles in the post-war era leading to the overwhelming rejection of said Nazism in Germany. Buffs (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC Oh boy, that is a HUGE gloss over of the de-Nazification of the German state post WWII, and ignores a huge part as to why former Wehrmacht leaders were allowed to lead the new West German Army. It wasn't just "Oh, they disliked the nazis but participated, they're okay". FrederalBacon (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Yeah, thats the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, its a myth. See also Paragraph 175#Development in West Germany and [23]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC) To be entirely fair, the main reason that myth exists is the reason Buffs believes it. "They let them serve after, they had to be good" is the exact opposite. It's more "They knew the Wehrmacht wasn't clean, and propagated the myth to soften the blow of having former Nazis lead West German army during Cold War". FrederalBacon (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC) I never said the Wehrmacht was "clean" in any way. I'm saying that it wasn't 100% evil either. I'm not saying "they disliked the nazis but participated, they're okay". I'm saying that merely being in the military doesn't mean you automatically support everything your government espouses. By that perverted logic the Union soldiers supported slavery as the Union had four slave states during the war and permitted slavery during the Civil War. The implication that I support criminal prosecution of homosexuals or the persecution of Gypsies/Roma is abhorrent and suggest that you strike that remark. Buffs (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC) I don't think that was the implication there, I think the intention was to show that not everything of Nazi Germany was gone after 1945, however, while Paragraph 175 was terrible, it's not like the persecution of homosexuality was geographically limited to Germany. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC) I never stated nor implied "everything of Nazi Germany was gone after 1945". It took decades to get to the point we are at today. I'm well aware, first hand. We faced the same sorts of issues in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc (previous administrators kept in place despite the prior record). I'm only stating that members of the military (or even government) don't necessarily support whoever is in charge. To level the charge at anyone that they support their leaders/actions just because they were in government is just as ignorant as saying that, when power changes hands, they suddenly are all 100% ok. Buffs (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC) That wasn't the implication... The implication is that you need to re-consider your dated historical views or in fact learn about topics you previously knew nothing about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC) The implication that I "know nothing about" these is absurd. You're concluding things I never stated. Buffs (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC) You stated them clearly, you said "In fact, many of them served leadership roles in the post-war era leading to the overwhelming rejection of said Nazism in Germany." which either means you're completely ignorant of history, a Nazi apologist, or both. So which is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC) In complete context, I was clearly stating that those that rejected Nazism were among those that served leadership roles in the post-war era led to the overwhelming and eventual rejection of said Nazism in Germany. The fact that you somehow read that as being a Nazi apologist is truly baffling. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "those that rejected Nazism were among those that served leadership roles in the post-war era led to the overwhelming and eventual rejection of said Nazism in Germany" is just as false, I suggest you read the linked Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, Paragraph 175#Development in West Germany, and the documentary which discusses this in detail. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC) What about that statement is false? Are you saying those put in power by the occupying forces post-WWII were ALL Nazis? While it's definitely true that, for example "90 of the 170 leading lawyers and judges in the then-West German Justice Ministry had been members of the Nazi Party" from 1949 to 1973, it's equally true that 80 were not (simple math). Those are the people I'm referring to, not the former Nazi-party members. They were the ones who helped drive policies and laws to become extremely anti-Nazi over the following decades. Buffs (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. If anyone doubts what an utterly repulsive individual we're talking about, see this Facebook post. (His Facebook account is linked from his user page, so this is not outing). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and I've reversed my !vote above. Show this racist slime the door. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  How is that comment "racist"? Is it because of the minorities that he shot? Buffs (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think you can work it out, taken in line with his other comments (including denying Confederate racism). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think you can spell it out. You're intentionally being vague and crucifying someone over it Buffs (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The totality of what I've seen screams racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic bigot to me, and my comments are aimed at whoever closes this - I'm not trying to convince those who support him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Then, to the closing party, I would contend that this is guilt by accusation and without evidence and bid you adieu. Buffs (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not to mention his blatant contempt for trans people. There are a dozen examples I could place here of why this is a good block, but I know that the ardent supporters will never be convinced so there's not much point in spreading his hate speech any further. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That one's quite ironic really, coming from such a physically repulsive man. Just as well he's happy being a bachelor, really. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  (Oh, and yeah, I know all about WP:NPA and all that, but C Bedford Crenshaw is the kind of person WP:IAR is made for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC))

  Boing, I would kindly ask you strike that. WP:IAR exists, but so does WP:CIVIL. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Well, OK then, seeing as you ask so nicely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry for reverting Andrevan, but I think this is now formally a community ban thread and as such needs to remain open. nableezy - 19:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh. Alright. Andre🚐 19:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  It became a formal CBAN thread when TAOT made the recommendation to indef him. I'm not sure why there is an idea that this is NOT a CBAN thread, someone proposed a sanction, we are discussing it, it has been a CBAN thread since TAOT proposed a block. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NOTBURO, he's now blocked so thread is moot, that's why I tried to close the thread. However, I will respect those who wish to continue discussing it as a CBAN on top of the existing indefblock. Andre🚐 19:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The issue is the block. The reason there is the rush to close is because a block has been placed, so this feels moot, but it's not, the discussion was not done when the admin imposed the block, so the discussion regarding the CBAN should continue. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  A block is not a ban, and currently any single admin may unblock this user if they feel an unblock request merits it. A formal CBAN would require a consensus to overturn. nableezy - 19:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I understand that, and that is my entire point as to why this conversation needs to continue. At this point, the editor could appeal his block and get it removed...but not if consensus is he is banned. The administrator applied a block, thus leading to the overwhelming feeling this should be closed due to mootness, but it ISN'T moot. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, was trying to reply to Andre. nableezy - 20:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I understand. That's fine. Andre🚐 20:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, I wanted him indeffed. I didn't really care if it was a community ban or an admin saw his activity and decided to indef. The result is the same. He's completely incompatible with Wikipedia and I hope the door hits him on the way out. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I understand you just wanted him indeffed, but the way it was done, including the fact that it immediately became a discussion and vote, to me means it is a formal CBAN discussion, even if it doesn't use a "proper" format, or wasn't intended to be one. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's... not how it works. If it were, there'd be a hell of a lot more CBANs in effect right now. People can stop by and support an indef without making it a formal community ban, they're just saying "yeah, this person probably shouldn't be here." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  So...the community....is giving input that an editor shouldn't be here, due to their conduct...and recommending them be indef blocked. How is that different than a CBAN discussion? Because it's not titled as such? FrederalBacon (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Essentially yes. We want to be explicitly clear when making a community ban. I've previously seen discussions with lots of users piping in to support a ban on user, but the moment someone claims it's a CBAN folks turn around and deny that it's what they're supporting. Folks can support a simple ban that can be appealed to an administrator, without supporting a full community ban. A CBAN discussion needs to be clear from the outset, or made its own subsection, so there's no confusion or misunderstanding. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's lovely time for someone to formally close this shitshow Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Before someone closes this ... I have some cred to burn by disagreeing with this block. It was bad enough to nominate someone's political userboxes in one of which they explicitly disavowed racism and in another of which (as Floquenbeam has shown) an extremist emblem was substituted for "GOP" by another editor, presumably without their knowledge. Now they have been indeffed on the basis of their response plus the userboxes, and people are trawling through their social media. Granted, we apparently aren't losing much in the way of article contributions, if you want to be utilitarian. But if they were displaying their politics and thus intimidating other members of the community other than in userboxes (since their statements in the long-ago thread that led to their desysopping; long ago that it was a deus ex Jimbone desysop), I missed it while I slept. They got poked, and I don't see that they were doing harm except by the userboxes. And we still permit political and religious self-expression in userboxes. Going after individual users one by one because someone notices a political/religious userbox with which they disagree amounts to a honeypot, it distracts from our encyclopedic mission, it erodes community trust, it's fundamentally unfair, and of course it's going to provoke uncivil responses from some of those users. It's bear-poking. Fair would be to ban all of the political and religious userboxes. They fail the criterion established after the userbox wars (which were before my time, I note; no, I am not a sock of a Great Old One), namely, not to be divisive. I'm saddened bordering on disgusted, especially since community discussion included several people opposing a block. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Fair would be to ban all of the political and religious userboxes." — strongly agree, and would support your RfC should you go for it — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I meant to post here too, not just at Bedford's talk page, but I got distracted. Since Yngvadottir mentioned me, though... The short version of my message on Bedford's talk page was that any criticism of Bedford based on the VRWC userbox featuring a fascism logo was unfair, as another editor substituted that logo for a harmless "GOP logo" without Bedford's knowledge. To the extent this might have been what TNT meant by "NONAZIS", I thought it only fair to mention. But as has adequately been demonstrated by others, and as I recall back when he was desysopped, there is a ton of other evidence that Bedford is a thoroughly icky person, so I choose not to spend any of my time arguing against a block that might have partially been based on a misunderstanding of the circumstances around that userbox, when there is so much other evidence that wasn't even mentioned in the block log that we're best off without him. I still think a community ban discussion is silly, as no admin is going to reverse this block unless Bedford says things that he will obviously never say. But from recent experience, if people really, really want to argue the toss, trying to do them a favor and save them time by getting them to not argue the toss won't work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's not just about the userboxes. He was also a massive jerk to multiple editors for no reason, and his social media was openly linked on his userpage, so you're totally wrong to imply that people went out and looked for his social media. He's been uncivil for over a decade. Don't turn this into an opportunity for you to soapbox about how we are the thought police. This was an excellent block of a thoroughly reprehensible user. If we block everyone who openly displays fascist symbols on their userpage (see great right wing conspiracy userbox with the symbol used by the British Union of Fascists), I would be thrilled. I will not share Wikipedia with fascists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  If we block everyone who openly displays fascist symbols on their userpage (see great right wing conspiracy userbox with the symbol used by the British Union of Fascists). sigh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh all you want. When I posted my comment, yours was not visible. At risk of sounding like a troll in saying this, AGF. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  If we block everyone who openly displays fascist symbols on their userpage (see great right wing conspiracy userbox with the symbol used by the British Union of Fascists) - Did you even read Floquenbeam or Yngvadottir's posts? It was changed, just a couple of months ago, when the editor probably wasn't even aware. I'm willing to give a pass on that UBX, given the fact that a different editor put that symbol on there. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The rest of my comment still stands. Bedford should have been blocked years ago, even ignoring that particular userbox. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  You don't find any disagreement with me on that. While I argued the block was premature given the CBAN discussion, a block was inevitable, clearly incompatible with project goals. And as you've retracted "I will not share Wikipedia with fascists", a statement I was going to take issue with (you can't just block everyone you believe is fascist), I think you and I are both on the same page. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, I have (had) some cred to burn (apparently I am on the verge of soapbox[ing] about how we are the thought police. AGF, as they say). Per Floq, there is a ton of other evidence that Bedford is a thoroughly icky person; per Trainsandotherthings, He was also a massive jerk to multiple editors for no reason. I trust TNT blocked him for recent on-wiki evidence of this ickiness and jerkitude. I am not suggesting anyone violated WP:OUTING. But what matters is whether someone plays nicely with others here on-wiki, how they respond to someone reporting their userboxes at AN/I and someone else nominating them for deletion isn't in and of itself a good indicator of that, and the fact an editor has a Facebook/Twitter/Goodreads/body of writings on Medium/personal website and mentions it on their userpage doesn't make their writings there germane to judging their behavior on-wiki. There's at least one slippery slope here, and applying political litmus tests is both disrespectful of fellow editors and destructive of our goal of having a diverse community of editors working together to improve the encyclopedia. Icky and a jerk is one thing. I hope he was blocked not for that, but for behaving on-wiki in such a way as to have a chilling effect on fellow editors. (And if that chilling effect was just the userboxes, deleting them would have been sufficient.) Because conflating "This person has politically intolerant views" with "This person is intolerant of their fellow editors" is bad, not the least because it will eventually result in a severely limited pool of editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I personally agree with all of that, but I also cant say that an editor who says I rarely use Wikipedia anyway anymore, after I got robbed of my admin status. If I get banned I will take it as a badge of honor. IT is further proof that no one should take WP seriously, especially considering the Recession debacle. is not saying very bluntly that they are NOTHERE. And that is sufficient to block. nableezy - 00:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Wait, you're advocating banning people based on criticism of Wikipedia? Buffs (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your comment doesnt seem to relate to mine in any way, but no, it is the blunt I lost my admin ball so now I dont want to have anything to do with this place and Im proud of getting banned. Ive found your input to be less than useful, as per usual tbh, and I dont think I have anything else to add to this discussion, so feel free to get in one more reply if youd like. nableezy - 01:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir, would you mind expanding on conflating "This person has politically intolerant views" with "This person is intolerant of their fellow editors" is bad? Enterprisey (talk!) 01:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The following may seem like starry-eyed hippy-dippy "let's all sing kumbaya", but this is a community with the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. What we should care about here is how someone acts on-wiki. If they respect fellow editors of all stripes (and endeavor to maintain NPOV in articles and discussions about encyclopedic coverage), that they are personally an X or an anti-Y is just part of our diversity. We shouldn't chase someone away because some of us or even most of us dislike their politics, religion, or morality; the reason to show someone the door is when they disrespect fellow editors on-wiki. (Tthe references in this discussion to this editor's reaction on Facebook to being blocked strike me as regrettable.) The easiest and fairest way to minimize people being shocked by others' beliefs and values is of course to enforce the ban on userboxes that state political and religious positions. We've had this issue arise in the past with atheist user boxes that mock religious belief; again, that's going to shock and repel some other users, but what matters is whether the editor edits courteously. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Clarify. You mean, if I had a userbox that read "I'm an atheist". It would get deleted? GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Let’s not slippery slope this, the only point here is Bedford is WAY over the line on his general behavior. The userboxes turned out to just be the tip of the iceberg. Dronebogus (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete userboxes that fail MfDs or blank his userpage. But don't block/ban him, unless he restores the userboxes. Remember, we might be setting a precedent here, on how this kinda situation is handled. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Reading this, I have gone the full range from thinking that you can't indef someone for 7 year old diffs and endorsing a strong warning only, to seeing the merit of TNT's bold block, to now feeling like I essentially endorse an indef/cban after I see how much discussion and ridiculous stuff is being posted coming close to defending the neo-confederate position. Yeah, we should outright block Nazis, no we aren't blocking people for thoughtcrime, but when users started deleting the userboxes, the blocked editor could have had a reasonable response, rather than an immature response digging in. Based on this discussion I just removed a bunch of my own lefty politics userboxes. Not because I no longer feel they should be permitted, but because I'm realizing how many wasted hours have already been burned on ad hominems and insane arguments. I don't endorse doxxing or trawling through social media. I do think this thread is giving fuel to the fire for people who hate Wikipedia and think it's a lefty-liberal bastion, though of course it is NOT, but we really shouldn't be litigating actual content fringe views in this thread, people! In conclusion, just for the time wasting alone and the incivility, the block is endorseable. Andre🚐 21:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Andrevan: I have given up on the idea that certain people are ever going to see Wikipedia as anything but left-leaning (which is categorically untrue) after the Talk:Recession drama. The people who believe that seem content to just make things up at this point, so why should we care what they actually think? They'll never be convinced, so we should just ignore them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I can't argue with you. Andre🚐 04:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  It’s not doxxing if it’s public info Dronebogus (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"we might be setting a precedent here" — one can only hope, but WP:NONAZIS is fairly good already, good idea though! — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef or CBAN -- Wikipedia gains nothing from having neo-confederates as members of the community. Show them (and all purveyors of racist ideologies) the door. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment He seems proud of his block. All the more reason to keep it. He's happy, we're happy, the community is happy. Good riddance. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

    Yay! Dronebogus (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

    Also I’m a mentally ill child, DOUBLE YAY!! Dronebogus (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

CBAN/block endorse voting/discussion

• Endorse block decision, Support indef CBAN. Bedford is incredibly rude and has a laundry list of fundamentally unacceptable beliefs clearly proven here, including Neo-Confederate sympathies, sexism, ableism, anti-vax, transphobia, and probable homophobia. This is different from my vote on blocking in the first place (I’m voting that the admin made the right call and a CBAN), so I’m not vote stacking. Dronebogus (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block & support CBAN. Yes Bedford is fairly inactive but not quite inactive enough for this to be moot. And ultimately while the notification may have alerted them, it was their choice whether to comment in response. My reasoning is a little different from many FWICT. For me, what it comes down to is I don't think an editor who says they were gangraped [24], [25] (some minor corrections later [26]), [27], [28] when the only thing that happened was discussion followed by Jimbo Wales de-sysoping, should be allowed to edit here. No editor should have to put up with that since effectively Bedford is saying these unnamed but known editors gangraped them which for many reasons is not acceptable hyperbole. For that matter, an editor who refers to their fellow editors as feminazis [29] is also IMO not compatible with editing here. And while it may have only been a single incident on-wiki when combined with their saying perhaps female editors objected because they were jealous over attractive women [30], frankly if this happened now. those two would be enough for me to support an indef until the editor demonstrated they understood how fucking offensive their comments were. While it may have been a long time since they made those comments with the most recent one being over 9 year old, their most recent comments including on this very ANI show they views haven't fundamentally changed, they still don't understand how offensive what they said was. At most maybe they recognise the need to avoid saying it on-wiki. That isn't enough for me when you were willing to say it in the past, especially when the editor hardly ever does anything here. To be clear, I'm not saying an editor has to agree with the concerns about the DYK. It's possible to respectfully disagree i.e. without saying you were gangraped or calling your fellow editors feminazis. I'm aware the gangrape thing was discussed a fair amount at the time and nothing happened. Indeed after a bunch of edit warring and discussion it was allowed to stand until Bedford removed it when changing their user page [31] [32]. That was IMO a very wrong decision which I'm embarrassed to admit I effectively was part of. (I don't think I ever commented but I'm fairly sure I heard about this at the time, it's why I recalled it and I'm fairly sure I didn't fight for a stronger decision.) I still think it's fine we correct this decision now when it's clear while they may have stopped using such offensive language, they clearly don't recognise how wrong what they said is. I'd note this cannot be simply put down to blowing off steam in the aftermath, as shown by the diffs the were still saying the same gangrape shit onwiki in 2013, nearly 5 years afterwards. On that point, for clarity I only refer to what they have said on-wiki. I only looked at a single off-wiki thing which was their comments about transwomen and that was an accident and I'd already formed an opinion by then. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I think I may have looked at some of the off-wiki stuff in 2008 although I don't recall what I saw.) I don't feel it's helpful to get into the issue of whether off-wiki comments should prevent someone from editing here when the on-wiki comments are IMO sufficient disqualification. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block, support CBAN. The evidence is clear that Bedord is -- as someone said above -- "a thoroughly icky person". His use of disturbing and insulting userboxes, his racist post on Facebook, his comments on trans people, are all very obvious indications that he is not the sort of person who can contribute here in a balanced and NPOV manner. Although Dennix Brown is an admin I have great respect for, he is wrong in categorizing this as "thoughtcrime", because -- like censorship -- thoughtcrime can only be defined in terms of the society as a whole, not in connection with a privately-owned and -operated website. Bedord is welcome to contribute to Conservapedia, or Racistopedia, or Confederapedia if he so wishes, but here we have -- or should have -- a much higher standard, and Bedford has shown his personal disdain for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block, support CBAN. Support for Confederacy, open transphobia and homophobia, misogyny and all this shit about America "held hostage"... This guy clearly has been collecting every alt-right bullshit he came across. Per WP:NONAZIS, we don't need his type. But, for sure, he'll be top shot editor on Conservapedia, they'll accept him with open arms raised right hands. And, as farewell gift, I'll give him imaginary brown shirt from my drawer. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 06:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  metapedia would be more his speed if he is a nazi sympathizer, conservapedia is probably closer to his actual beliefs Dronebogus (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block, support CBAN. Just to be known – I already voted to indef Bedford, this vote is meant to support the action of TheresNoTime and a CBAN. As a community, we definitely don't need someone who displays open support for the Confederacy, transphobia, homophobia, misogyny and various conspiracy theories (not to mention the additude towards other editors). There should be no place on Wikipedia for people with such views, regardless of their past merits. —Sundostund (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I think we are engaging in the Wikipedia equivalent of sending Al Capone to prison for tax evasion. It's hard to argue that Bedford did enough in the very near-term that would rise to the level of an indef block and a CBAN. We are essentially banning him for all of his prior unprosecuted misdeeds - something we should have done years ago but failed to. Say what you will about how much this block-and-ban makes us feel good; Wikipedia policy (I emphasize policy and not essays) does not provide for this.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  You’re talking about sending Capone to prison like it’s a bad thing. Dronebogus (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Capone metaphor was a bit extreme, but what I'm pointing out that we are not blocking and banning for active, continued and ongoing disruption to the Wikipedia. The nature of this block is nearly entirely cathartic, and the precedence established by that is what concerns me. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. That is my point as well. Buffs (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  We have banned people for having neo-Nazi, racist, or homophobic/transphobic beliefs before. So it's not so much precedent as established behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Those people usually out themselves within the first few days of being on Wikipedia, usually by diving straight into a contentious subject area like AmPol; making questionable edits sourced to phony/unreliable sources; and getting into ideological/battleground arguments with other users. Their reprehensible beliefs tend to be window-dressing for behavior incompatible with Wikipedia policy, and so they usually end up being banned because of improper edits, rather than for their beliefs. In comparison, Bedford was provoked into responding by someone trawling through his userspace, and then banned after his on-wiki and off-wiki response. This isn't really how we do things. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't understand why people keep talking as if someone was looking through Bedford's userspace as if looking for stuff to find offensive. No evidence has been presented of this which IMO makes it close to a personal attack. The most likely thing that happened is someone saw Bedford somewhere and happened to check out their user page. Maybe they were headed to the talk page, maybe they were just interested. When I visit someone user space I am not looking for something to find offensive. I'm just looking. If I do happen to see something to cause concern (which hasn't ever really happened to me) I may raise the issue probably directly with the editor which is reasonable. If I don't get a satisfactory response and I feel the issue is serious enough I may take it someone appropriate. In this case, since the editor hadn't edited in ages I can understand why an editor might skip that step. Userpages are supposed to be for editors to say something about themselves or their editing that other editors may find be interested in. Unlike subpages, they aren't intended to be hidden or something only the editor ever sees. Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I really don't think it's reasonable, no matter how long someone has been gone for, to go straight to WP:ANI for objectionable userpage content without any intermediate steps or without supporting diffs indicating that attempts at mediation have failed. ANI is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. (bolded mine) I think a behavioral problem ceases to be chronic if there is a long span of inactivity. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect, IMHO it was WAY better to send Al Capone to prison only for tax evasion, than to allow him to roam around freely, live in his "hard earned" wealth and immerse himself in his "business" ventures. Sometimes, doing something is better than doing nothing. Also, mistakes and failures of the past can be (and should be) corrected, and that is how I see this indef block and a CBAN. —Sundostund (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  WaltCip: blocks are intended to be preventative not punitive. From their replies, it's clear this is someone who continues to think it's okay to say they were gangraped over those disputes and de-sysop. The fact they weren't blocked over it is very unfortunate, but until Bedford understands how fucking offensive that comparison is, I don't see they should be welcome here and especially if they aren't here to actual do anything else productive. If they hadn't said anything, maybe we could just hope they've learnt, but they decided to speak up and demonstrate they don't understand. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• FYI I've self-requested review of my block at WP:AARV — for what it's worth, I'd appreciate any comments y'all make there to remain strictly on the topic of my admin actions (i.e. best to continue the "back and forth" here, if you're so inclined) — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 13:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, it's a tad discomforting to know that editors are monitoring the userpages of other editors. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

And why's that GoodDay? User pages don't belong to the user, and patrolling user space edits finds a lot of promotional spam (among other less savoury things) — surely you're not discomforted to know that such pages are monitored and deleted? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Suppose you, Dronebogus or anyone else had userboxes & someone took offense to any of them? It would be quite upsetting, to the editor who's userboxes are MfD. I'm more concerned with whether an editor is pushing their PoV on Wikipedia pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

User pages are commonly viewed by other editors. Within reason, they should not include objectionable content. I'd say announcing that you're proud of your confederate heritage falls inside that. Wouldn't you agree? —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't share Bedford's views on the Confederacy. If he isn't pushing his views on that topic, onto mainspace or in discussions? Then don't bother with him. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse/CBAN This may be the first time I've ever disagreed with Yngvadottir, but I simply don't see that we're losing anything here. What are the positives of leaving Bedford unblocked? Nothing, and they've proved that themselves. What are the negatives? Well, just read up this page. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support block, endorse CBAN. I already supported a block above, this comment serves as confirmation that I also support a CBAN. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse/CBAN. All else aside, they're clearly and persistently uncivil, with no indication that they're going to improve. This is a collaborative project, which depends on working with others; editors have the right to their private beliefs but not the right to express those beliefs on-wiki in a way that insults other editors. And when people point out that their userboxes are insulting, Bedford has constantly responded in an insulting and belittling manner. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block - While I can't sympathize with many of Bedford's personal views on various topics (as communicated by hundreds of userboxes on his user page), I can't see any policy-based rationale for this block. Bedford had some objectionable and inappropriate userboxes on his user page. Ok, the solution is to remove the userboxes and nominate them for deletion, not jump straight to an indef block. Bedford also made some mildly uncivil remarks in a recent MfD, referring to another editor as "childish" and "ignorant". This type of language, while discouraged, is hardly worthy of an indefinite block. If we handed out indef blocks to everyone who made comments on this level, we wouldn't have any editors left. Hell, I would've been indef blocked 15 years ago if that were the standard operating procedure here. It's not. Therefore, I have to believe that this user was blocked because he made a userbox that implies that he disapproved of President Obama and later changed it to imply his support for the January 6th insurrection. Sure, some of these views are reprehensible in my opinion, but I don't think there is a policy basis to block someone for expressing unpopular views (assuming those views don't rise to the level of overt racism, discrimination, hate speech, etc. - and disapproving of Obama is not inherently racist). Some people are reaching back in Bedford's editing history, pointing to edits from 10 years ago as justification for a block. Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive. Again, if someone has an objectionable userbox, remove it from the page, nominate it for deletion, give the user a warning, and move on. If the user restores the userbox despite the warning, then we can think about blocking them. This block was premature and not policy-based. As much as I disagree with just about all of Bedford's personal views, I don't think WP will benefit by blocking all users that fail to conform to a certain limited range of political beliefs. There are already enough accusations of WP becoming a liberal echo chamber, we don't need to add fuel to the fire by blocking a harmless editor that makes 3 edits every 5 years. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block per WaltCip and Scottywong. While I find Bedford repugnant, I frankly don't see a policy-based reason to block him. Will I mourn for Bedford if he gets banned? Certainly not. But do I think the OP should have found something better to do instead of stirring up controversy with an inactive editor? Absolutely. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse/CBAN Much of my thoughts have already been surmised by others, particularly Sundostund, Dronebogus and Praxidicae. In coming to this opinion, I've read through this discussion, the current discussion on Bedford's talk page, all three of the userbox MfDs, the 2008 ANI thread that lead to Bedford's desysop, and recent posts on Bedford's Twitter and Facebook (both are linked on his userpage). In doing so I've seen many uncivil comments, displays of sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE says that blocks should be used for three things 1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; 2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and 3. encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. While this obviously fails #1, because Bedford has been mostly inactive since late 2013, I believe it meets #2. Bedford's on wiki behaviour has not changed in the 14 years since Jimbo desysopped him, and his recent off-wiki reactions to the block by TheresNoTime show absolutely no sign of self reflection or acceptance that his behavour is the problem here, as he continues to lash out and blame others for the consequences of his choices and actions. As such I believe this block meets criteria #2 of BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, because it will inherently deter the continuation of present, disruptive behaviour that, based on his history, is likely to repeat and persist in perpituity. The best time to indef or CBAN Bedford was when he was last active, the second best time to indef or CBAN him is now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - The editor has been lurking for more than a decade, prepared to cause disruption when the opportunity was right, as is indicated by replying quickly at MFD and changing the date in the userbox. An ongoing risk to the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block – Completely frivolous and moralistic block. As for potential disruption to WP, the user is not active, so there's our answer. I also concur with what's been said above wrt echo chamber, thoughtcrime, etc. Nutez (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block. For disclosure I voted above (pre-block) opposing it, and now I'm voting to undo the block. This was a bad block. It was made arbitrarily at a point in the discussion when there was clearly no consensus for a block. Instead the admin in question took it upon themselves to ignore the discussion and do it anyway. I agree with Nutez, Scottywong, and others that Bedford was not disrupting the project and this was clearly motivated by his silly userboxes that could have simply been deleted. The idea that him removing a newsletter from his talk page is homophobic is also laughable. Undo the block and only reinstate it if he actually disrupts the project. — Czello 08:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Ah, we're still talking; I came here to read the close. Sorry, Black Kite and others, and thanks for the offer of an alternate venue, TNT, but similarly to ScottyWong, I don't see this as a policy-compliant block. I hadn't read Bedford's response here when I typed my above statements; I now have, and have looked at his talk page responses too, and while he is providing yet another example of the axiom that those who call fellow editors immature—in this case, childish—have some learning about adult styles of discourse to do themselves, he presented no threat to the encyclopedia, imminent or otherwise. He made only one response here (to my surprise), and I disagree with some of the characterizations of its level of rudeness. Calling him NOTHERE based on his churlish reactions to being attacked (which is what it amounts to, including insistence that he could not mean what he said in one userbox) was an overreaction, and adding a NONAZIS rationale based on an emblem someone else had slipped into a userbox that other editors were transcluding onto their userpages was unjust. In my opinion. Sorry again, folks; justice matters, tolerance should not be only for viewpoints we agree with, diversity includes everyone, be better than them, a big tent gives us a better encyclopedia, etc., your bromide here. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Diversity doesn’t include people who openly express hate for anyone who isn’t like them, which extends far beyond the stupid nazi box here Dronebogus (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  tolerance should not be only for viewpoints we agree with, diversity includes everyone - Yes, racists, nazis, everyone. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I do hope you’re being sarcastic Dronebogus (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• 1 week block for his uncivil comments and pa. I think those who support indef focus too much on his previous conduct and those who oppose block overlook his recent personal attacks. I think one week block would be a balanced approach.--Madame Necker (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose block - this would set a dangerous precedent --FMSky (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The precedent being that racists and neoconfederates aren't welcome here? Because that is exactly the point. Wikipedia gains nothing and loses a lot by keeping this user around. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 13:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

    What do you mean by keeping this user around? He barely edits, and this whole kerfuffle is quite likely to provoke him into making a come-back to "trigger the libs" or smth. No need to give him and his ilk more hate fuel. Please ignore and move on. Nutez (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

    All the more reason to ban him Dronebogus (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• This community doesn't need people who express support for the Confederacy, as well as racism, homophobia, transphobia, mysogyny, etc. Should someone who displays things like this, this, this and this on their social networks accounts (which they themselves linked from their user page here) be a member of this project? Someone who sees their fellow users as "mentally ill children"? They should be let to enjoy their "badge of honor" (as they called their indef block), far away from this project and regardless of their past merits. —Sundostund (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Goodness, is this where we're at? Scouring their social media to find objectionable content? — Czello 19:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, he’s literally got it linked on his shrine to his ego userpage for all to see. One click and you’re exposed to this trash. Dronebogus (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  There is the option of ignoring his userpage, though. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  You keep saying that, and yet userpages are kind of… meant to be seen. Dronebogus (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  See something you don't like? figuratively walk on by. What if an editor was or editors were to complain about any of your userboxes? These things have the potential to backfire, down the road. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  “Don’t like don’t read” doesn’t fly on WP; we have this thing called Wikipedia:UBCR Dronebogus (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also, I have had userboxes sent to MfD in the past (albeit for more innocuous reasons) and I like to think I handled it a bit more maturely than Bedford here. Dronebogus (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Link Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dronebogus/Userboxes/CBT Dronebogus (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  In the past, I've come across some userboxes that one 'could' consider offensive, but I chose to not bother with it. It was their userpage, not mine. Anyways, I guess will just have to agree, that we approach these situations differently. GoodDay (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Are the supports for a ban, mostly due to Bedford's off-Wikipedia views? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Mine is mostly based on the yes very old but not that far back in his edit history editing of placing "the War of Northern Aggression" in Wikipedia's voice for the American Civil War and the general contempt for the community expressed in his parting message. nableezy - 16:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose block this is entirely over-the-top and pointless waste of time precipitated by nothing other than political dislike. The editor hasn't been editing, and their only recent actions were grumbling—hardly the stuff we block over. There was no policy-based reason for the block, let alone trying for a ban out-of-process. It could have been ignored like any reasonable adult should, and the encyclopedia would be no worse off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agree, oppose Gross overreaction. We frequently encounter prejudiced editors, and handle them proportionately to the harm they’re causing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed! I oppose on the same grounds. Buffs (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Ban & CBAN - Let's not split hairs here: we cannot tolerate users who support racist, sexist or homophobic belief systems here & still call this an encyclopedia which is friendly to others. Certain belief systems are simply incompatible with that goal, and are not simple "opinions" which one may agree or disagree ove. Bedford has made it very clear that not only have they no interest in actually contributing to the encyclopedia anymore, they support bigoted beliefs, hold the entire community in contempt, and are proud of being abrasive & offensive. Further, the argument that we cannot consider off-wiki behavior is foolhardy. It is simply more evidence that his views are incompatible with this project, and he will not be able to work with others appropriately. This is not "political dislike," this is protecting project members from someone who has espoused agreement with racist ideology. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, looking at the history on this noticeboard, we do not promptly kick off racists. My impression is that we’re Western-Europe/north-American centric, in that we respond more vigorously to issues in that region than others. For example, here’s an anti-Armenian genocide denier Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#Ethno-nationalist editing by user:Aloisnebegn. Received a 31-hour block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is worth pointing out that when Bedford was de-mopped by Jimbo in 2008, off-wiki content (a Myspace blog post) was given as the primary reason behind the action, and ArbCom has affirmed that they can take note of off-wiki behavior for settling on-wiki disputes. I understand the idea of not using social media against someone, because social media isn't always representative of someone as a person. But there is precedent for having used off-wiki content before, including for a decision regarding this very editor. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  So...indef for something 15 years ago? That seems to be a stretch. Buffs (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is absolutely not what I said, not my argument, and not even the point. I wasn't arguing for indef due to the same reason Jimbo removed his mop, I was saying there is precedent for considering off-wiki content for on-wiki disputes. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support block / CBAN per many of the above comments, especially Sideswipe9th's point about criterion #2 of WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. I would also argue that points about the diversity of the editor pool cut both ways: as it stands we do a shit job of retaining minority editors, and treating people like this with kid gloves –– or even just habitually looking the other way –– only contributes to a toxic atmosphere. Finally, the user in question has made it abundantly clear that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, so I'd suggest that much of the hand-wringing about on- versus off-Wiki behavior is moot. It was a good block and it should be solidified as a formal CBAN. Generalrelative (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose indef CBAN, support TBAN on politics of the United States, broadly construed. I don't think that a broad, site-wide CBAN can be justified here as being narrowly tailored towards prevention of disruption. Blocks can be used to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, but I think that a TBAN on the history of the United States would be more narrowly tailored towards deterring this individual's disruption than a CBAN. If the individual chooses to violate that TBAN, or socks to get around it, then a CBAN would also likely be warranted, but I'm generally hesitant to immediately indef people with a (practically) clean block log when they aren't causing editing disruptions in those topic areas nor violating any specific community sanctions against them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  With respect to social media, no I don't think that postings on social media is a per se reason for a CBAN except when that posting in and of itself disrupts Wikipedia (such as through harassment, canvassing, leaking confidential checkuser data, etc.). Just because I can find the twitter account of an editor that's very clearly connected to their Wikipedia profile and discover that they deny well-documented human rights abuses doesn't merit a CBAN unless they are merely using Wikipedia as a tool in furtherance of their atrocity denial (i.e. they have a long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia w.r.t. a particular problem area). And if they are otherwise productive outside of that problem area, it might be better to TBAN them from a specific topic area so that they can productively edit elsewhere. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  The reason my opposition to a CBAN is was weak is that Bedford really hasn't... done all that much other than be really pointy on their own around 2021. The part of the equation above that says if they are otherwise productive outside of that problem area is important to a TBAN vs CBAN calculation. I just don't think that we have an affirmative case that the user is activley using Wikipedia in an attempt to cause disruption; the creation of two inflammatory userboxes c. 2008 is not justification to block a user now even if that user is making poor policy arguments in favor of keeping them. We can clean up the userboxes and move on without having ginormous ban threads if the user doesn't really come here to begin with; the things that specifically concern me are the previously linked diff's edit summary as well as calling an editor childish for nominating two userboxes for deletion in good faith. And, while a temporary block while the deletion discussions are going on makes perfect sense as a preventative measure, I'd really expect to see more of a demonstrated history of bad-faith editing/personal attacks if we're going to implement an indef CBAN for repeated pattern of disruption. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Wishing death upon another editor is the ultimate rejection of that editor's human dignity and is clearly inconsistent with our community's civility norms, but a single diff that was made ten years ago is not just cause for a CBAN today. But my change in opinion really isn't about a single diff; the more that I look into this editor's conduct on Wikipedia both before and after they ceased to frequently edit, the more and more that I find that the editor has had long-run civility issues that predate even their 2008 desysopping. Since those civility issues have continued to rear their ugly head, I would support a CBAN for long-term problems with personal attacks and incivility that have been present since at least 2008. The recent personal attacks by the editor were mild in extent (referring to another editor's actions as "childish") but they show that the editor's attitude with respect to civility in discussions is still out-of-line well-accepted community expectations that were present, even the core civility norms that appear to have been around for many, many years. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't care one way or the other about a CBAN, but the block was appropriate to begin with, subsequent events have removed any possible doubt about that, and obviously the block should remain. --JBL (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN We don't need neo-confederates here. Paraphrasing an old ban reason from long ago, his self-identification with groups that are detrimental to Wikipedia's reputation should be enough to get rid of him. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN, but not quite for reason block was made. I don't think that we should, as a rule, indef neo-Confederates who disavow Confederate racism. The Lost Cause is a reprehensible ideology, but it's one that a lot of people wind up in based on poor education and community echo chambers. And, as others have said, we are not the thought police. I do think that if someone is going to hold a view as fringe as that, they should expect that it will upset people, and have a duty to not be obnoxious about that view in a way that will increase discord in the community. As Bedford has flaunted his support for an entity built on the systemic enslavement, rape, and murder of Black people, and has, when criticized for that, characterized his critics as "mentally ill children", I see him as deliberately causing disruption here, with no possitive contributions to offset that, and so I support a CBAN, even if I would have rather this be resolved less dramatically. Also, I still would like an answer as to whether he stands by saying Jimbo should kill himself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think this is probably the most valid of all arguments to CBAN someone. It's worth noting that we might normally give latitude to unsavory beliefs if the editor did two things: avoiding battleground conduct in relation to those associated areas, and contributing significantly and positively in an unrelated area of editing. For example, an openly neo-Confederate editor whose contributions are 99% to mathematics and engineering articles without doing any work in AmPol or AmHist is likely to garner much more leeway in the eyes of the community. We even openly admit on WP:UPNOT that productive editors get a lot of flexibility in this regard: The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. (bolded mine) This is why I don't buy the argument of "we just don't want any editor with those beliefs", because I think those arguments fall apart when dealing with more complicated and nuanced cases. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Where did Bedford say that about Jimbo? I’m generally in favor of CBANing/blocking people who tell directly other editors to kill themselves, but would you please link the diff? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Here: [33] 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - User:GoodDay wrote:

  Are the supports for a ban, mostly due to Bedford's off-Wikipedia views?

  I haven't seen Bedford's off-wiki views and don't intend to look at them. I favor a CBAN because they are disrupting Wikipedia, by being a lurker who didn't edit until their userbox became contentious, and then changing it to make it more inflammatory. Lurking with intent to disrupt when the time is right is not good faith absence from the encyclopedia, but is bad faith silence. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I would've (and did) advised, that Bedford not contest the MfDs & remain silent overall. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should start formally and publicly offering your services as a Wiki-attorney. xD 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block/cban per my previous, extensive reasoning. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose He's not a self-described Nazi, and the usrboxes in question could equally be interpreted as tongue-in-cheek memes. His only recent crime seems to have been some rudeness to other editors. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block and support CBAN. I doubt I could say it much better than, e.g., Sideswipe9th did above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse whateve purges this moron from the project. He had me at "What's the difference between Pfizer and Kyle Rittenhaus? Rittenhouse's three shots worked." Yuk, yuk. EEng 18:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block/Support CBAN - Even when an admin all those years ago, Bedford was clearly WP:NOTHERE. The fact that those clearly polemic userboxes were observed on his userpage only recently only makes it worse because they have been sitting there for years. I was only going to support a TBAN for the American Civil War and US politics, but the misogyny, subtle racism, and Facebook post discovered by EEng has convinced me that a CBAN is the only remedy. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Jkudlick: Beside that post, there are also these ones (at least so far) – [34], [35], and [36]. And they were discovered by Boing! said Zebedee, Praxidicae and Rockstone35, as far as I remember. —Sundostund (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  There's far worse currently on his FB and Twitter. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Specifically, far worse than what we already posted, his comments about specific editors made in just the last few hours alone should disqualify this block from ever being overturned. Absolutely disgusting. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Praxidicae: Those new comments should be shared here as well. The editors in question have the right to know what the subject of this discussion think about them personally. And, those editors who are yet to vote here have the right to see what kind of individual we are dealing with. —Sundostund (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not going to share comments about a specific editor that are particularly disgusting and hurtful. I will, however, share with a funct if needed but I'm not going to help him spread his blatantly transphobic hatred by posting his comments publicly. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've seen his latest. And I'm sure the person targeted will regard his comments as nothing more than microcephalic impotence and will not be the least bit upset. But no, let's not give him any more air - the most productive thing we can do with someone like this is ignore him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: Speaking only for myself, and from my own point of view, I can say this – I can be offended, hurt and upset only by people who are important in my life. Being "targeted" by an... individual like this, would be just laughable. —Sundostund (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yep, exactly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block/CBAN per the most recent revelations above. I think all of the bridges have been burned, or at least the ones that weren't already.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. I was going to sit this one out, but Praxidicae's comments above tipped me over the fence. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 01:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block/CBAN Not that there isn't enough evidence to support a ban already, but back when Bedford was active, he once tried to sneak a "War of Northern Aggression" reference into an article about a modern U.S. highway. The article appeared as a DYK not long after (which is why I noticed it at the time); fortunately someone caught and removed the reference before then, but he came awfully close to sneaking neo-Confederate language a click away from the Main Page. Normally I wouldn't cite decade-old diffs as behavioral evidence, but given that (a) he seems to have the same attitude toward the American Civil War today and (b) some editors question whether his personal beliefs are relevant to editing, it seems worth mentioning. I wasn't all that surprised when I learned the editor behind that edit got desysopped for making bigoted comments; honestly, we should have banned him while he was still an active editor, and there's no reason to leave the door open for him to come back. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Time for me to give up. The block was premature and not well justified in the block log, IMO, but within admin discretion, and instead of requesting unblock or railing on his talk page, the editor chose to be uncivil on social media that he knew some of the community would be looking at. Never mind that he's made it harder to defend the next editor who reveals they have unpopular views. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • This is not just about unpopular views. Saying "I believe there are two genders and they are associated with your anatomy" is different than saying "muh people say they're trans just because their ugly". I share your concern that sometimes Wikipedia editors do err on the side of thought policing, but in this instance I think there was no reason to believe Bedford was ever going to have any positive contributions to Wikipedia going forward. Personally I would've just waited until they had done something on the 'pedia worthy of blocking (and I worry that likely left-leaning POV warriors would unfairly get this benefit of the doubt more often than the right-leaners), but I think their reaction is enough proof that this was long-term the proper outcome. As for their views on the Civil War; as a proud Southerner who loves the South, a descendant of a Confederate veteran who fought at Gettysburg, and a descendant of plantation owners, I can only say that Bedford's views are on the war are deeply flawed and ahistorical, and could only be explained by deep ignorance of the historical record or racism. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Just for the record – few more of Bedford's Facebook "masterpieces": [37], [38], [39], and [40]... "deep sigh". —Sundostund (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support block. To use a bit of an uncomfortable but humorous metaphor, people use condoms to protect themselves from nasty diseases. I think blocking this clear WP:NOTHERE racist is proper protection against any racist & fascist "diseases" this clear troll carries. rogueshanghai^{chat (they/them)} 16:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  I know you didn't mean it this way, but I think it's best if we don't talk about other people, or their ideas (repulsive as they may be), in disease terms. It's too much like ...

Żydzi Wszy, Typhus Plamisty = "Jews are lice; they cause typhus"

EEng 17:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

When even EEng says your joke has gone too far... 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think RogueShanghai was angling for a laugh, actually, but in any event it's a question less of "too far" than of "ill-chosen direction". EEng 00:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Really? Is this image necessary? Andre🚐 01:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose CBAN per Scottywong. If the goal is to prevent Bedford from editing, we could have just done nothing because he hasn't been active in a decade, but we went ahead with an indeff. Now we are just kicking him while he's down and being overly punitive. This whole discussion has been a massive waste of editors time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 20:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  So it's cool to just force our trans and POC editors to share space with someone who openly espouses hateful, violent rhetoric? Good to know. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  If Beford was committing personal attacks against transgender or non-white users on Wikipedia I would be the first person to support a block or ban. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Is the implication that if they do these things off Wikipedia that it's fine? Attacking users off-wiki is never okay and should still lead to a ban. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't believe he's been attacking users on Wikipedia offline to the point of CBAN. I've seen that one tweet he made calling his blocking admin a name, but that is it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Two days ago, Bedford personally attacked TheresNoTime in a Facebook comment, because of her gender identity. That is absolutely a violation of the UCOC, WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks, and WP:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Are you talking about this post? It's the only one I've seen by him, and it doesn't mention anything about gender identity. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that post. Specifically the first comment to that, posted on 11 August 2022 at 17:27 UTC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh. I had to go open my personal Facebook I don't use anymore to see it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think at this point an indeff would be appropriate, but CBAN not so sure, and it would be only for the personal attacks. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  While Facebook like many modern websites may randomly do different things for different people it was not necessary for me to login to see the comment. Just clicking '1 comment' revealed it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Bedford has just officially burned his last bridge with that remark. Dronebogus (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  There is no way to argue that isn’t a ban-worthy act of deliberate trolling, attempted cyberbullying, and hate speech. Dronebogus (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse/CBAN with thanks to TNT. If I know an editor's political opinions (or religious opinions or philosophical or whatever), it's almost always because they're POV-pushing; if they weren't POV-pushing, I wouldn't have any idea what the editor's political opinions were in the first place. I can only learn it if they share it, and there's rarely any reason to share it other than trying to spread it, and trying to spread it is POV pushing. We aren't talking about banning someone for opinions they hold, we are talking about banning someone for opinions they have published on a public forum. Posting a userbox (or talk page comment) isn't a passive action, it's actively publishing one's views on a visible public forum. Some say this harms no one because no one has to read it; I say it harms everyone because the whole point of publishing it is so that it will be read. Levivich 20:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  That’s a very good argument. Dronebogus (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  He's wicked smaht. Of course, I'm not sure where that leaves my user page. EEng 02:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Mocking politicians is nonpartisan. Levivich 02:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Good save. EEng 05:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Bedford has not been pushing his views on the main space. He has on his personal userpage, which is very common among users. There are many excellent users who have user boxes saying the are liberal, conservative, or even more extreme views such as communist. So this is clearly about his political beliefs that the community doesn't tolerate. I don't really care what someone puts on their user page, much less their personal social media accounts. IMO, a person should not be blocked unless they can't leave their beliefs at the door when editing in the main space or interacting with other users, which can not be said in this case because Bedford hasn't been editing much in a decade. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Doesn't matter to me which namespace. These codes of conduct should be, um, universal. Levivich 02:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, but users have political and religious user boxes all the time, but they don't necessarily POV push. So what I'm asking you is what makes Bedford's expression on this his user page public forum, in your eyes, different from a user having a user box saying something like "This user is conservative" or "This user is a liberal" to the point he needs to be CBAN? The only difference I see is the extremity of his beliefs. So we are banning him because of his beliefs, when we allow other to share more acceptable beliefs. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. Levivich 03:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  User pages do not belong to the user, they are part of the Wiki community, and bad behavior there should not be tolerated any more than it should be anywhere else on Wikipedia Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose block. This seems to be a means to punish someone based on political motivations rather than policy. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Denigrating other human beings for who they are, their gender, race or ethnicity is not a matter of politics or opinion, it's hate speech and violence and is not acceptable in a collaborative environment. Full stop. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "denigrating other human beings for who they are" is bad, but I can't see a diff showing Bedford is using Wikipedia to push "hate speech". Can you please provide them in case I missed them? (using Neo-Confederate userboxes on their userpage would not qualify; the solution there would be to just delete those userboxes - if they are indeed inappropriate for Wikipedia).Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I just saw the off-wiki comments... so removing my vote. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support CBAN Long ago ceased to edit constructively, and his off-wiki personal attacks on other editors are unacceptable. Time to show him the door. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN With such little editing, I was going to say let the matter drop. I'm also not a fan of anything that would be consider "thought policing". However, the off-Wiki comments are more than for me to say never darken our doors again. There's no place for that at all. None. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN I was the one who originally proposed this, but I don't believe I ever formally voted in this section. His transphobic comments directed at TheresNoTime offwiki just further show I was right to call for him to be indeffed. Not impressed with those who think such conduct can be excused. Bedford is an openly racist and transphobic jerk, and I'm glad he's gone. Not that he'll ever realize he did this all to himself, of course, but that's not our problem. Maintaining an environment where editors don't have to share space with jerks is, however, and a CBAN would make it clear that conduct like that of Bedford is never acceptable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support community ban: While Wikipedia has many editors with diverse political viewpoints, the line stops at outright bigotry. Bedford has long since crossed that line. Furthermore, he is actively disseminating hate speech through his social media accounts and generally showing how little he respects the project. There is no reason to keep him here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse and support CBAN/block I'm not here for anyone openly disparaging our LGBTQ+ editors, hostile mis-gendering, and calling them 'mentally ill children', and all the other racist, bigoted and transphobic s**t pushed on their page and offline. A complete disgrace to the mop. Nate • (chatter) 20:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment -- at this point, it appears that there is enough of a consensus to close this discussion with a community ban. Can a kind admin do so? Thanks. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• I first came across this discussion yesterday and have given it some serious thought. In principle, I agree with what Dennis says above that blocks are for actions, not for holding the wrong opinions. Being conservative is not, by itself, a bannable offense. How said conservatism manifests itself certainly can be, and that is what I think distinguishes this particular case from thoughtcrime.

  Although I have never interacted with Bedford, I am very familiar with his history. I distinctly remember reading through the ANI thread that culminated in his desysop all the way back in 2008. Basically, he suggested a very salacious DYK hook, which he proceeded to personally approve for the Main Page. It was subsequently removed by Fran Rogers (then known as "Krimpet"), whereupon Bedford reverted her. SlimVirgin then removed the hook, and once again, Bedford reinserted it and denounced their attempts to exclude it from the Main Page as "feminist objections". The third person to remove it was Sarah, with Seraphim (known as "Seraphim Whipp" at the time) reinserting the replacement hook. Krimpet also posted about it on Bedford's talk page, and this was the discussion that ensued. Note the combative tone that Bedford adopts in his response to those who raised the issue with him. In other venues, he referred to the women who reverted him as "feminazis" and "extremists", and on his MySpace blog, he made a particularly vile post (copied/pasted to ANI here) in which he referred to them as "cretins" and "harpies", describing their reaction as "a bunch of PMS" and suggesting that the reason for their response is because they "are unattractive and don't like being even slightly reminded of it." He wound up desysopped by Jimbo Wales himself after several editors asked that he resign the tools. Bedford brought it to ArbCom, but the case request was ultimately dismissed, though not before Broooooooce linked a previous schism he'd had with Bedford in which the latter responded to disagreements by escalating and casting aspersions (links may be found at the case request under “Comment by Broooooooce”). Since then, he has repeatedly referred to his desysop as a "gangrape",[41][42][43] including on his user page, which he edit-warred to keep up.

  Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't hold things from up to 14 years prior against someone, but the reason it remains relevant today is that Bedford has not changed one iota. The recent sequence of events is strikingly reminiscent of what took place back in 2008: someone took issue with something Bedford said or did (in this case, the pro-confederate userboxes), Bedford responded by escalating and casting aspersions,[44][45] and then to compound everything, he makes a particularly demeaning post about it on social media (on Facebook, which is linked to on his user page just as his MySpace had been in '08) where he refers to his detractors as "mentally ill children" and purposefully misgenders TheresNoTime. In both the controversy from 2008 and the one from this past week, Bedford has demonstrated a complete incapacity for introspection and a marked willingness to outright abase those who disagree with him. He never even entertains the notion that maybe he is the one who is in the wrong, and that the people who are communicating their issues with certain aspects of his behavior might not be part of some broad leftist conspiracy dead-set on purging conservatives from the project. This is not a matter of left vs. right, either—if someone who self-identified as a liberal proceeded to edit Che Guevara in such a way as to diminish his involvement in fermenting violent insurrection, and then castigated anyone who dared to revert them as being "AmeriKKKan imperialists", I would be every bit as inclined to endorse their exclusion from this site as I am here.

  Wikipedia is a collaborative project. A prerequisite for being able to contribute here is the ability to get along with others, and that means respecting those who have differing views from one's own. The hubris, the siege mentality, and the sheer vitriol exhibited by Bedford time and time again for well over a decade are fundamentally incompatible with participation here, which leads me to support an indefinite block and community ban despite his long-term inactivity. We should not accommodate people who exhibit such a toxic attitude towards other editors. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I was not even aware of the contents of his Myspace post.. or the striking parallels between his behavior now and his behavior then. Imagine being 50 (if he was 36 in 2008) and not having matured since like... 12... that's about where Bedford appears to be stuck at. Coincidentially, I've been a member of Wikipedia since I was 12, I'd like to think I was more mature than this, even then.There really is no reason to keep him around. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

    @Rockstone35: I fully agree with your view of Bedford's personality (there's really nothing much to add to what you already said). I also agree with your proposal (stated above) for an admin to close this discussion with a community ban. —Sundostund (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  AmeriKKKan Imperialists sounds like a Rage Against the Machine album. Dronebogus (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment -- alright, I hate to sound like a broken record, but will an admin please close this? It has run its course. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive edits by Cortezjayel

Cortezjayel (talk · contribs) was slapped with three final warning for disruptive editing. I warned this user on five separate occassions for misusing the sgv markers in 2022 Luzon earthquake infobox. I even made it clear in the talk page that should it happen again, I will take this matter here. User obviously isn't taking this seriously. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to warn the user to no avail. As of writing, they have made the same disruptive edits. Since this is simply going to happen over again, and no one came to address, I have the user to WP:AIV. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 10:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I picked up the AIV report and was initially minded to decline as the edits aren't blatant vandalism and looked initially more like a content dispute. But on further investigation I found:

• This isn't the only page, or the only editor, where they have followed a similar pattern of behaviour
• The user has been repeatedly warned, asked to engage in talk pages and elsewhere, and has repeatedly failed to do so
• On a similar vein, they apparently never leave edit summaries. While that's not a blocking issue in itself, the fact they repeatedly edit war without engaging in any discussion or even explaining their edits is unacceptable.

On that basis I have given Cortezjayel a short term block for disruptive editing.

Obviously that means they cannot edit this page to defend themselves in this thread, so if they indicate on their talk page that they would like to be unblocked in order to do so (but *only* for that purpose) then that's fine with me.

Meanwhile, the block I have issued is only short term and we might want to consider whether a longer or indefinite block is warranted. Personally I don't think it is, yet; the usual tactic of increasingly long time-limited blocks will hopefully suffice should they repeat this behaviour after having time out to reflect. WaggersTALK 12:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Waggers. The editor has done it again. I won't make any attempts to communicate with the user anymore. It's pretty safe to assume that this will continue so long as the account isn't blocked. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and taking action BTW Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've extended the block for another week; if they continue the same behaviour after that I'm minded to make it an indefinite block. Feel free to ping me a message on my user talk page if that happens. I'll leave this thread open for a while in case any other admins wish to comment. WaggersTALK 11:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Davidkenarovcska

Davidkenarovcska (talk · contribs) - another user with a long history of warnings for unsourced content, including a previous block - but they are still at it. GiantSnowman 10:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

User continues to make unsourced changes to BLPs - nobody else bothered? GiantSnowman 08:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Constant disruptions by User:TheWikiholic, User:TruthGuardians and User:Salvabl at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists

We've been having constant disruptions by TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists for quite some time now. I'd like to mention first that all three editors are always involved in promoting Michael Jackson.

• Their initial joint involvement began at Talk:List of best-selling music artists to promote Michael Jackson at this discussion. In that discussion, all three clandestinely begin to discuss the general system of the list, and gradually switch to discrediting Elvis Presley and The Beatles, claiming that neither deserves to be listed at the top of the list.
• The second main discussion I'd like to point out is this, wherein all three initiate the discussion pretending their concern is within another area of the list, but again they quickly turn to discrediting The Beatles and Presley in hopes that they could replace at least Presley’s spot on the list with Michael Jackson.
• TruthGuardians' Michael Jackson promotions continue in ways like this.

Since they haven't been successful in achieving their goal, they come up with comments like "The list has a systematic bias against black artists". "Currently there is far give too much consideration given to the Beatles and Elvis on the basis of the lack certification system in a time when the consumer market worldwide was a lot less diverse and a lot smaller in markets like today", "I will also initiate a new discussion to use lower claimed sales for many artists, including the Beatles and Elvis Presley, as the gap between their claimed sales and certifications is the most egregious of all". "This benefits the most US-oriented artists such as Elvis Presley", "and that at the same time that is the reason why Presley keeps his 500M figure and is above Jackson".

I'd like to mention that not long ago, I reported TruthGuardians here at ANI for Off-wiki Canvassing, which was a discussion at the Talk:List of best-selling albums where both TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians were involved in promoting Michael Jackson's Thriller for having sold 100 million units. The discussion was closed to their disadvantage by an admin. Ever since then, both have been either engaged in wikihounding me at Talk:List of best-selling albums or targeting my work at Talk:List of best-selling music artists.

Topic ban proposals

I would like to ask our community to ban TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl from editing and/or commenting at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists and its main article as their only goal is to promote Michael Jackson and demote Elvis Presley and The Beatles. Thank you.--Harout72 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support For topic bans.

[removed] aka TheWikiholic was given final warning after a community discussion earlier on ANI.[removed]

TruthsGuardians's conduct was discussed extensively in the earlier ANI thread.[46]

It is now time to topic ban all three of these since Salvabl is also acting disruptive and frequently violating WP:POINT[47]. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I've had to go username change for the reason of privacy and protection. I was subjected to legal and violent threats on and off of Wikipedia from the ruling party of India because of my edits on Wikipedia. I had explained all of this before undergoing a name change. You need to remove the name of my old account here as you are putting me at risk. I would also like you to show me these so-called disruptive editing or edit warring because these examples by Harout72 are examples of said behavior. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996:@TheresNoTime: WP:OUTING. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: I have no dog in this fight but that was no violation of OUTING. Read WP:REFACTOR and don't modify others post. Editorkamran (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: Cheers, I am aware of WP:REFACTOR, however it struck me as potentially a case of outing, so I removed it out of an abundance of caution. If you do not consider that other editors privacy or safety is compromised by the material I removed, by all means reinstate it, I do not object. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for the response. Editorkamran (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TruthGaurdians

Here you go again… more false accusations and another failed attempt to weaponize the ANI board against editors who constructively disagree with you as to not have to work towards a resolution with editors who point out the fundamental issues with the articles that you are in clear violation of WP:OWNERSHIP for. The RFC you mention was not closed to anyone’s disadvantage. It was closed because “without prejudice as it was considered a clusterfest that was going nowhere.” So of it was to my disadvantage, it was also to yours as well. Furthermore, I would like to add that you falsely accused me of off-wiki canvassing as is evident by the results and non-action. I told you then you were making false accusations and I’m asking you now to stop making that same false accusation. What you claim to be disruptive editing is not the case. Agreeing with other editors who have voiced the same concerns as I have is how Wikipedia works. Talk:List of best-selling albums#Methodology shows multiple editors bringing up some of these unresolved issues that I have had for years and that is that you are also in violation of WP:NOR. Also, I did not start this discussion. I only constructively added to the discussion started by Rhododendrites. Finally, other issues that have been reported by other editors is what they deem as racial bias found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102#Racial bias at Talk:List of best-selling albums reported by Levivich.

So while once again you are making a false assumption that all of these genuine concerns is about the position of one artist over the other, it’s not. It’s about how one editor gets to control the narrative of these pages while in clear violation of WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTHESIS. Instead of wasting the time of the admins by weaponizing the ANI board, I’m asking you to stop with the false accusations once and for all, and work with the many, many editors (old and new) who have been reporting the same issues for years. There are many great suggestions in the works here right now: Fundamental Article Issues TruthGuardians (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but as someone who just started a conversation on the above talk page, I can confirm that Harout has not been receptive to constructive criticism on the talk page here historically, and the only interactions I've had with the three users mentioned above by him have been respectful and attempting to find a common path forward. I was the one who started the Fundamental Article Issues section on the talk page there, and I've never interacted with these users before now. I think Harout is the one being unreasonable here. Pacack (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• What the pluperfect hell? Being an utterly uninvolved editor who's never participated on those talk pages, I just looked over the first linked discussion Harout cites, and his reaction is little short of hysteria. It is not a sinister act to question the criteria used to make a determination, nor is it a thought crime to deem Michael Jackson to be more popular in his time than the Beatles and Elvis were in theirs. (I disagree, but it's certainly a justifiable stance to take.) Harout absolutely gives the finger to WP:AGF in that year old discussion, with this opening salvo: "Finally, you will be Boldy reverted as many times as required and be reported to ANI for edit-warring and disruptive behavior. In fact, let me remind you that your hateful comments here at this talk are disruptive enough." Ironically enough, such an unprovoked statement -- the alleged "hateful comments" had to do with questioning the methodology involved -- would've been ANI-worthy itself.

  Then we go to the second linked discussion, where far from being the monolithic front Harout is claiming, TruthGuardians supports Harout's stance: "I find myself in agreement with Harout’s argument above, “The higher claimed figures should be looked at and considered on individual bases, it's not all that black and white.” He’s absolutely right, there can be a lot to consider and a lot of gray areas depending on the artist and situation." Once again, it's a long, long, long dry discussion of methodology and numbers. I don't remotely have the interest or expertise necessary to parse them out myself, but gosh: that'd be a content dispute, which has no place at ANI.

  Then we have the sockpuppet investigation involving TruthGuardians [48], which was closed by the checkusers as being unrelated to TruthGuardians. Abhishek0831996 deserves one hell of a trout slap for claiming THAT as the basis for a topic ban on pretty much anything. ANI is not a venue to tear down people who disagree with you on content. Ravenswing 08:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to check the talk page archives. This WP:IDHT by these editors is happening for years of years. They don't even understand what is being discussed and keep pursuing their fan-based POV just all the time. Topic ban is necessary now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"You need to check the talk page archives." This is adjacent to "'check revision history.' You've essentially made an allegation, then pointed at a mountain of paperwork and told others to prove it for you. Please provide some diffs. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996 is correct, others including Bluesatellite have provided explanations to them also in those discussions, but those three are simply not interested in listening to what anybody explains. Their main focus remains demoting Elvis Presley and promoting Michael Jackson. This can still be seen in their comments today Harout72 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

These are confusing diffs to include because from what I've reading, including these two diffs in a vacuum, the users you are reporting are being more civil and respectful than some of the people lambasting them. In particular that diff of Salvabl at least to me seems a very civil and thought-out attempt at collaboration and sharing ideas. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

See, like GabberFlasted, I see those diffs and come to a different conclusion: that they think the current way of assessing things is biased in favor of some artists and against others, and they are doing so in a civil fashion. IDHT does not mean "Wahhh wahhh, they're not agreeing with me, so they're Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!" Ravenswing 22:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No, what you need to do, Abhishek0831996, is sharply ratchet back your rhetoric and accusations before we start seeking topic/interaction bans against you. Reading that diff from Salvabl, which you characterize as "disruptive" and a POINT violation, is nothing of the sort ... unless you're one of those provocative types for whom "disruption" means "The other guy disagrees with me!!!" By and large, ANI regulars are not stupid. It would be extremely unwise of you to treat us as if we were. Ravenswing 22:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's one thing to start a topic about methodology or the way list operates as whole and to stay on that issue, but it's completely another thing to start a discussion pretending your aim is to discuss list's methodology, and quickly/clandestinely turn it into yet another Michael Jackson records sales promotion. And this is what these three editors are constantly using the list's talk page for. If these three want to engage in promoting Michael Jackson records sales, they shouldn't be allowed to that on wikipedia. Harout72 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• The last dispute was closed with the instruction that all involved parties stop bringing these sales disputes up. If we're still talking about this, that means someone is violating that... Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Pinged, but I don't have much to add. I saw another dispute about this page pop up, and was struck that the inclusion criteria seemed to rely on more OR than I'm used to seeing. It was a bit too involved, with a lot of apparently strong feelings, to really pursue, though. No comment on the behavioral issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Another uninvolved observer here and I'm really struggling to see a strong basis for this. A lot of the opening of this report centers around Michael Jackson specifically, and Harout (OP) seems to perceive any talk of Michael Jackson as what amounts to paid promotion. The link in the third bulletpoint listed is nothing more than TruthGuardian (TG) saying that they should expect upcoming news that would alter the article contents, but the bullet words it as if TG is unfairly promoting views in articlespace. OP also brings up an ANI discussion that ended in a 'Knock it off, all of you' but claims it specifically targeted the reportee. OP claims that the reported users are hounding them on a single talk page, instead of the logical conclusion that it is a talk page that all involved users are, well, involved in, and they would naturally contribute. This is a very confusing tangle of talk page archives and ANI threads but what I can be can be certain of is that this thread was written deliberately uncharitably, almost to the point of deception. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Having read TW's statement, and Talk:List_of_best-selling_albums#Methodology? I am inclined to agree with my peers above and below me that this methodology smells of, at the very least, synthesis. This, combined with Harout72's at times confrontational and condescending attitude, do seem to paint a picture of perceived WP:OWNership. The claims of a double standard being upheld by Haruout72 are also of significant concern, as this type of discrimination would border on NOTHERE in my eyes (this is not an accusation). TW has put together a very cohesive argument, and I would commend them on keeping a level head and assembling it. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor as well here, I also don't see any overt Michael Jackson POV pushing. Questioning methodology isn't POV pushing. TruthGuardians even agreed with the reporting party in one of them. All three users comments above appear to be mostly civil, so I'm not sure where the basis comes from.

From the reporting party, however, I have seen open accusations of off-wiki canvassing, socking, meatpuppetry, and more. I don't believe I've seen any evidence to support those accusations from the accusing party. There is also a slight misrepresentation of the information included in this ANI. I find calling a RfC that was closed as this clusterfest is going nowhere as "To their disadvantage" to be disingenuous as best, misleading at worst. There's no way any editor can look at the way that RfC and go "Yup, it was these three editors that were wrong". If it was closed to their disadvantage, it was closed to your disadvantage as well. Also, I would point out, that if you've had an admin come into several threads about this topic and essentially go "Nope" (User:EvergreenFir did it with both the ANI, and the RfC) due to civility issues, there is a severe issue with the way this conversation is going. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, in follow up to all of this, this seems like a topic and methodology ripe for controversy. It appears, according to the page itself, to be leaving off some significant artists, because it doesn't meet their criteria and methodology. I feel like including "Claimed numbers" at all flies in the face of WP:V. The verifiable numbers are directly from the organizations certifying sales. Any artist, label, or news organization can claim an artist has sold a certain amount....but that's not the amount they are verified to have sold, which are provided, and listed, on the page. To have a formula to allow for claims outside of reliable, verifiable, sources is....weird to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved contributor here also. I want whoever is reading this to know that Harout72's first edit to the page List of best-selling music artists is this one, in 2007. Since then (15 years) he almost owns the page, making possibly hundreds of edits; see the edit history for yourself. So now he arrives at AN/I requesting three users be banned from editing this article. Why? A content dispute, apparently, accusing the three other editors of attempting to "promote Michael Jackson", along with several potentially misleading and/or exaggerated diffs. Reporting three users with whom you are possibly engaged in content disputes with to AN/I, and requesting bans for them, is potentially disruptive; you could have simply walked over to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Harout72, I think it's about time you take a break from that article, and give others a chance to contribute to it, because it's unfair for one user to control the contents of a page to their liking, and it violates WP:OWN. Nythar^T.C 01:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TheWikiholic

It's been more than a decade now since Harout has been single-handedly maintaining the page List of best-selling music artists. On the list, he includes artists that began charting before 1973 who are required to have a minimum of 30% of required certifications.

• Between 1973–1990 artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 30-70% in certified units. (That is 2.35% for each additional year after 1973)
• Between 1990–2000 artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 70-77% in certified units. (That is 0.7% for each additional year after 1990).
• Between 2000–the present artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 77-80% in certified units. (That is 0.14% for each additional year after 2000).

Throughout the years a large number of editors have expressed their concerns over this calculation method with the last instances being here. If we research the archives of the talk page we can easily discover that Harout72 has completely made up these definitions and the minimum required percentage for artists to be on these respective lists. Even if we follow the above method, we can see that Harout has been showing bias against black artists. For example, according to the edit history, talk page archive, and Harout’s own method artists who began charting in the 1980s might have at least 60% certification to support their claimed sales. Both Madonna and Whitney Houston began charting in 1984 and 1985 respectively. It was in 2010 that an article was being used to support the 300M claimed sales of Madonna. During that time she only had 153.3M certifications, which was only around 51% of her 300M claimed sales. Keep in mind, according to the page’s own rules she should have been at 60%. Last February when Whitney Huston reached 153m certification one user requested to update her claimed sales to 200m instead of 170m per the page’s own rules. Harout was not willing to do so. He told the editor to wait until Whitney adds another 7 to 8 Million certified sales and thus brings her total certified sales to 160m. Last June there was a similar instance of raising the claimed sales of Ariana Grande by 5 million. Interestingly, he had no issue by then as you can see here Similarly, on Feb 8, 2019, the article began using the 200m figure for Taylor Swift. Back then, Taylor's total available certifications were only 201.1M. Currently, Artists like Kanye West and Beyonce have 251.4M ad 222.7M Certified sales respectively, but they are still in the 160 M claimed sales title, whereas Taylor Swift with only 238.9 still has 200m claimed sales. I'm astonished to see that some artists enjoy such privilege, while other artists do not. Every time editors raise their concerns over the calculation method of Harout 72, he falsely accuses the editors of being disruptive, which is why we are here now. He also once called me by my old user name, even though I had a name change on the grounds of privacy and legality. You can also see from this discussion from last June 2021 that Harout has been stating to different users under this thread that the discussion is futile and you guys are wasting your time like he is the owner of this page. Here is another instance where Harout72 was changing the rules to the article’s definition that supports his arguments and then asked me to refer to the definition in a vain attempt to prove me wrong. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now and I'm also an admin on a local Wikipedia. I have never seen a single editor have so much control over the policy-making of a page by his WP:OR and WP: SYNTHESIS. By allowing Harout72 to continue to do this, the community is allowing him full control of all the Wikipedia pages related to the List of best-selling music artists and albums and every single pages of both albums and artists listed in these two lists. The problems will continue to exist and, editors will continue to discover the same fundamental issues with these pages and, he will continue to claim that they are disrupting simply by them pointing out the obvious on a talk page. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be, but Harout has turned it into such a toxic situation. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, hang on. Question here. There are obviously a number of editors interested in the topic; I see numerous names listed in the various discussions. What is stopping you -- or any other interested editor -- from opening a RfC to establish a fresh methodology? Set forth the options, have people comment on the options, see if a consensus can be built around one option or another. I realize (having written some notability criteria myself) that one editor can set forth criteria which are taken as a given from there on forward, but no such criteria is immune from changing consensus, and no editor-author gets a veto over the process. Despite Harout's assertions, those so-called "rules" are not set in granite. Ravenswing 22:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This situation is similar to one at List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation where there were issues with ownership of the inclusion criteria in a way that many saw as WP:OR. Once these issues were publicised to the wider community (in that case through a failed AfD) a consensus on the article talk page emerged and issues were fixed. In this case there was no need to sanction any individual editors and more eyeballs on the issue made consensus forming easier. In other words, an RfC might be the way to go. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it may be beyond that. Read this thread on the talk. I have significant concerns about an editor who tells other editors to disregard the RIAA and instead download a mediafire link. I will not download that link, nor should anyone else, but like...come on, he's using a .doc, with no author listed on the file, for sourcing. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the link attached to Rihanna for certified sales is a link to a database to search. If you search by artist, she is no where near the claimed amount on the page. Is "Converting certifications into sales and then converting those into a number we display on the page" a "routine calculation" allowed in OR? Because if the number that the editor comes up with is different than what the RIAA comes up with for official total sales, that appears to fall pretty cleanly into SYNTH, correct? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree there are significant WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:OWN issues here and maybe admins should look at these. My example really was about how a critical mass of editors turning their attention to a topic can overturn these issues without resorting to bans etc. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the proposed topic bans have a snowballs chance, and considering the fact that more editors are gonna have eyes on this, you're absolutely right. The issues with the article appear to be a content dispute, backed with some pretty strong feelings and desires. If an RfC produces a consensus that moves away from the current methodology, then that is what will happen. But, my concern with being beyond that point is that, given the above examples, I don't believe an RfC on this issue would remain civil enough for other editors to engage in. The fact that, when Evergreen closed both the RfC and ANI linked in the report, they called them a "clusterfest" and "timesink" respectively, doesn't exactly encourage the idea of holding another RfC where all of the editors involved can do their apparently normal thing, even if other editors would be involved. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought we were heading to an RFC for a resolution, per Apoxy’s suggestion and the last comment under Fundamental issues section, but here we are instead. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ve now put forward a draft of an RfC for discussion on the talk page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear option: Fully protect the article

Let every change be run past an admin first. It's fairly obvious that a number of the regular editors on the article, many of whom have ulterior motives for inflating or deflating the figures of various artists, can't be trusted to maintain it accurately themselves. Short of partially blocking everyone (which in some cases may be unfair) I can't see any other way of making sure we won't be here yet again in a few months. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SUPERPROTECT. Something this important should be left to the Foundation Office to handle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not really. We regularly fully protect articles when they're the subject of serious disruption, and that's certainly the case here. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

the foundation definitely shouldn't be getting involved in content disputes like that. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I still have yet to see any evidence that any regular editors with the alleged ulterior motives. There needs to be an RFC (or consensus) to handle Harout’s WP:Synthesis and WP:NOR issues as other uninvolved editors pointed out above. Furthermore, there are no disruptions. There is only one editor that keeps coming to the ANI board. Since the last time we were here 4 or 5 other editors have pointed out the same issues that has been getting brought up for years. These fundamental issues must first be corrected. Once corrected, future editors that discover the page won’t have the same concerns. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So START a RfC. (I'd do it myself, but I don't have the expertise to phrase the various options adequately or accurately.) Nothing prevents you from doing so. Ravenswing 03:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing "many of whom have ulterior motives." I'm seeing that Harout routinely claims that his self-declared opponents have ulterior motives, but that's not the same thing, and he could really stand a strong warning to AGF. Ravenswing 03:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's what I see, too, but not just lack of AGF, also WP:OWN issues; maybe an WP:ABAN is in order. Levivich 05:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not just Harout (indeed, they are almost certainly not the worst offender). You may both want to search the archives for the multiple previous threads about this article. Though, to be fair, it's partly the problem of the article. There are multiple different sources for "facts" regarding the subject, so it is easy for multiple editors to cherry pick the ones that suit their POV, and they can then say "We must say X, it's sourced". Well, it is, but there may be many sources that say Y. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You want me to see things beyond the archives and discussions I've already read, come up with some links. Having read the links supplied by Harout and Abhishek as Proof! of their foes' dastardly intent and behavior, and seen nothing that causes me to so much as blink, I'm going to need something considerably stronger. Ravenswing 14:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Abhishek is not even an involved editor. His disdain for me comes because of a non-music related edit, and the fact I ignored him on my talk page. This is the level of harassment that I have been subjected to by some editors. It’s exhausting. By the way, I have no issues if they protect the page for admission only. Also, as far as an RFC is concerned, please refer to the ongoing discussion found Talk:List of best-selling music artists#Fundamental Article Issues TruthGuardians (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to very much second Ravenswing on this one: if this is really just the tip of the iceberg, then there must be a gargantuan amount of disruption that probably should have been addressed a long time ago and should be brought to the community's attention now, whether some of it is stale for purposes of sanctions now or not--if only for context and deciding what needs to be done here. Because my inclination after a non-trivial quasi-deep dive into the record here over the last couple of days (as a community member with no previous experience with the relevant articles and parties), is that I have seen a great deal of concerning behaviour from one editor in particular, and very little in systemic problems that do not in some way involve that user. Not that I'm dismissing Black Kite's observations, but I'm just not seeing live issues from other parties that even remotely rise to the same level. Here, for the record, are my thoughts on the matter (again, as yet another non-involved editor looking at this issue fresh):

We have an editor here who has devised an idiosyncratic methodology for inclusion criteria that is either "merely" 100% synthesis, at best, or probably just better described as pure OR. It certainly isn't consistent with any policy or guideline promulgated by this community, nor am I even seeing the support of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to apply it as an ad-hoc rule on those articles--even if such a decision could have been used to support diversion of an article's content towards an inclusion criteria separate from WP:WEIGHT and WP:V, which is a dubious proposition it itself.

And from all appearances, that editor thereafter used this made-up standard to bully-boy their way into complete ownership of the article for a truly discouraging amount of time. And then that same editor (and here I'm about to join a veritable chorus of editors above with similar concerns) spun the content of their arguments arising out of this approach to stitch together an ANI complaint that highly spins (if not outright misrepresents) the course of the interrelated disputes to seek sanctions against their rhetorical opposition and remove them from said editor's sphere of influence on the related articles. What's truly telling about this course of conduct though, is how Harout seems to be genuinely oblivious to the fact that their perspectives would not be endorsed. Seeking sanctions against three separate editors at once was always going to put the dispute under a microscope, and you'd expect any experienced community member attempting such a proposal to present an airtight case, instead of a tightly wound boomerang in a box. Yet Harout seems to have genuinely thought this would come off well. That suggests to me that this is not just a case of a badly calculated effort at misdirection, but someone who fundamentally does not understand the deep flaws with their approach to the content, to the consensus process, and their interactions, at least in this subject space.

Are the actions of the other three editors to blame for some of the mess here? Possibly they were suboptimal in places I have not seen. I think they made at least a tactical error in accepting the inclusion framework forced by Harout and then getting in the mud to argue in those terms, and possibly letting their arguments also get tainted by subjective standards--the very thing our sourcing-based verification and weight processes are meant to avoid, and why this ad-hoc, idiosyncratic replacement standard is so problematic. But at the end of the day, I am seeing one major problem editor here, and thus one very simple fix that will begin to sort the situation on these articles faster than anything else. Is an RfC warranted to officially rollback this bizarre franken-monster of ginned-up inclusion criteria that has been foisted on these lists for years? I guess it couldn't hurt, but then it also shouldn't be necessary, since these rules were substantially the passion project of one editor and never passed anything remotely like local consensus, let alone a WP:PROPOSAL threshold. More to the point, I don't see any such RfC going over well if Harout is a party to that process--if my review of the talk pages in question here is any guide.

In short, I am very much in support of a TBAN of Harout72 from all lists and articles concerned with music as a commercial product, broadly construed, as the simplest first step here. I do not see much cause for hope that the substantial and overlapping issues with WP:OR, WP:OWN, or WP:AGF are likely to be alleviated by anything short of this with regard to this editor and that content area. If I am blunt, I'm not sure Harout has sufficiently internalized a number of Wikipedia's most crucial policies regarding consensus and collaboration for productive editing anywhere. But this is a place to start. Apologies for the jumbo post on this one. Regardless, I do broadly support an active community response here, whether focused mostly on Harout or not. Clearly a blind eye was turned to this situation for far too long, whoever is ultimately responsible for the disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one noticing that comments on the talkpage clearly show ownership? Editors are addressing new sections directly to Harout, they seem to have the sole voice of what gets added to some of these people, so many unreliable sources listed on the page, and then, there's this comment.

@TJ What's your poin? I think, Harout's explanation already good enough to show the reason why we let Taylor Swift hang out with Mariah, Whitney, and Celine in the table. She deserve it. As for Beyonce. The new claim of 160m is good enough for her at this moment.

That is a heck of a talk page comment. "Why we let" "She deserve it" "Good enough for her". Is this how this methodology is on the page? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You are not alone in your observations. Editors will need to be in Harout’s good graces to get what they need and should be done. If an editor question his arguments you will be falsely accused of sock puppetry, disruptive editing, and working for the Michael Jackson estate… and then bring these claims here to the ANI board, or at least threaten to do so. He has about 4 editors that back his every word and allow him veto power in that article along with any article that is about music sales. I don’t want to list those other editors here, but you can check almost every discussion and/or RFC he’s been apart of and see the same editors echo his words, without merit and sources. I’ve even seen sources, like an Academic journal, being dismissed for what it was because he made up an entire POV for the article in order to try to protect is WP:OR. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's not get carried away here. You're conflating issues. You have brought some reasonable suspicion upon yourself by your own actions - you almost exclusively POV-push positive slanting content to and and all things Michael Jackson as your main area of interest outside these disputes. That's what gets people suspecting things, not just because "you dared question Harhout" or whatever you're driving at here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

What's with this recent trend of admins casting evidence-free aspersions like "ulterior motives" and "POV-push"? "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence...". If that applies to anyone, it applies to admins. Levivich 18:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, as I don't spend much time here, but in regards to my comment, I'm not reporting him or calling for any action to be taken on him, I'm talking to him, saying his recap of events was incomplete, and lack awareness of the full scope of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am astonished that I just read that. An admin claiming POV pushing from an editor, with no diffs for evidence, while pretty much the entire ANI (except for involved editors) is saying that the editor has a good point, and that there are significant problems with the page, ownership being chief amongst them? And TG is POV pushing? How about all the editors in here of the opinion the methodology is synth, at best? Are we all MJ POV pushing? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You're ...astonished about that? Are you guys reading into something I didn't intend or something? I said he got suspected of things because he writes exclusively positive content about a subject. It was an observance I saw back when I did some digging at the WP:SPI filed on him. It was a passing observance when I saw what I interpreted. It was not a rationale for an administrative action taken, nor a proposal for administrative action towards him. Your reaction is truly baffling to me. Bizarre interpretations like this are certainly why I usually tend to stay away from ANI though, thank you for that reminder. I'll get out of your way and let you all argue into oblivion without resolution, as is the trajectory of these discussions yet again. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've struck the comment since it appears the point is being missed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Your exact words were You have brought some reasonable suspicion upon yourself by your own actions - you almost exclusively POV-push positive slanting content to and and all things Michael Jackson.

You didn't say he got suspected of things, you flat out said he did the things he was accused of, with absolutely no evidence or proof. You said he did it by his own actions. This isn't reading into anything but your own words, and I absolutely reject the "Bizarre interpretation" line, because it was your words. Thank you for retracting. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I said consistently editing positively about a single subject eventually leads to suspicions of other things. If I spent the bulk of my time writing positive content about Tom Petty across Wikipedia, people would be accusing me of being tied to his PR team. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

And if they do, we can all agree they should provide diffs or other evidence backing up those accusations. Thanks for striking. Levivich 01:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Especially considering the fact that this ANI is about POV editing regarding MJ. Multiple uninvolved editors have looked at the evidence presented above, and just don't see it. An admin coming in here and going "Actually during my SPI of this editor, I noticed they do POV edit alot" would be extremely relevant to this discussion, should there be proof of the same. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I really urge that this line of discussion go no further. First off, this is doing no favours to anyone who wants to demonstrate that the disruption here is entirely (or at least in the majority) caused by Harout and not the parties he has brought to ANI. And this is coming from someone who just lodged the single longest and most vociferous post of any non-involved community member to yet look into the issue, in support of that proposition. Before Serge posted the comment to which such umbrage is being taken, I was about to post one myself with advice that dovetails with that given by Salvabl below: namely, that when someone brings multiple parties to ANI and then those parties are lucky enough to benefit from multiple random community members looking into the issue, dismissing the complaints and calling for possible boomerang action instead...that is not the moment in which the parties should be filling the thread with constant broadsides and defensive responses. Because these kind of WP:INVOLVED responses are just going to muddy the waters precisely at a time when you really want the comments of the uninvolved parties supporting your position to shine through. Especially if the involved comments appear even slightly histrionic or questionable. And note, for the record, that TruthGuardians didn't provide a single diff to support their accusations in that post--and yet the un-involved admin who responded to that highly accusatory post is getting lambasted for the same thing? I'm afraid I don't track the reasoning at work there...

And let's also recognize too that whether Serge took the time properly diff it or not, we are in fact talking about an editor who has two entries in their block log (the only two entries, in fact) for disruptive behaviour associated with articles relating to Michael Jackson. Nor is Serge by any stretch of the imagination the first person to suggest that TG has a POV in this area, as can be easily confirmed in mere minutes merely by looking at their talk page edit history. I also saw it in discussions in the involved article talk pages while looking into Harout's problematic behaviour. So if we're going to be forced to get into those weeds to defend an admin's off-hand comment of caution (which seemed to me to be very much in TG's own best interests to hear), it's really not going to improve the case for Harout being the prime issue on these talk pages (a position I still support, incidentally). Quite the opposite, in fact. The group of editors who has been put into opposition with Harout by virtue of this unnecessary thread should really 1) learn to recognize when they are ahead, and benefiting heavily from the due diligence of uninvolved community members, 2) not over-egg the pudding of counter-complaints, when the course of the discussion is already favouring them, 3) not overreact to a comment from an admin merely suggesting that someone is not perfectly, 100% innocent of any errors in the dispute, and 4) not thereby bloat the discussion with combative exchanges with admins which can only serve to distract from the scrutiny being placed on the other party to the dispute. In short, don't look the gift horse in the mouth... (And yes, I understand that not all of the enumerated behaviours above are attributable to involved parties, but also some un-involved community members, but the advice is nevertheless valid). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This admin is not an uninvolved editor. The admin has voted along side Harout a number of times. I have never POV pushed anything. I literally have only question, with evidence and using Wikipedia rules and standards the fundamental issues with these articles. While I am a bit of an expert in all things music and Michael Jackson, I am not a single purpose editor as proven via my edit history. I am a facts based, no non-sense editor and I just wanted to clarify that. Here are two recent examples of the admin being involved: here they vote in the favor of harout per harouts comments. here too. While I am a bit of a tenured editor now, when I first started editing I in 2019 (I think) I didn’t know anything about edit warring or disruptive editing. So while my history my reflect such behavior on a couple of occasions, that was awhile back on an unrelated topic. The accusations of disruptive behavior now is about wiki articles related to all things sales. There is no evidence of that behavior on the topic at hand, because it does not exist. I learn from my mistakes and I think that is made clear through my edit history.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I participated in a recent related RFC, and found the proposed change to be logistically unlikely. If I commented elsewhere I don't even recall it. (Edit: checking the 2 difs, they're both from the same discussion.) I have no particular interest in Jackson or the list, I just respond to a lot requests for input at the music Wikiprojects I'm active in. I've already struck my comment and have no interest in any further involvement - I already turned down a request on my talk page to get more involved earlier this week. This is not my interest in the music content area at all. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If you check the talk page of the Talk:List of best-selling music artists we can see that none of the discussions were related to Michael Jackson. So I am not convinced that the Michael Jackson argument stands here. Before Harout72 took this issue here, there were three different active conversations was going on. One was about one of the editors finding the 600M claimed sales of The Beatles being inflated. I nor TruthGaurdians even participated in this discussion. The second one was about raising the claimed sales of Beyonce from 120M to 200 million because a few days ago RIAA certified almost her entire catalog equal to another 104M. Neither Salvabl nor TruthGaurdians participated in this. The third one was about the fundamental issues of the list. Harout72 never participated in that discussion. So I don’t see any evidence of his accusations of a Michael Jackson POV push. Ever since the issue was taken to the admin's noticeboard some editors have expressed concerns over the calculation method that was invented by Harout72. So I guess he may feel as though he is losing his WP:OWNERSHIP if the third conversation gathers more attention and that is the catalyst for the accusations against us and the reason why we are here now.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Those discussions referred to by TheWikiholic are not related to Jackson in any way. I just think that Harout72 makes Jackson's name appears frequently (this ANI report is an example of it) in an attempt to discredit and label as disruptive the behaviors of other users with points of view that he does not support. And this is systematic since long ago. I, for example, the last thing I suggested and that has led me to be here was to decrease the claimed sales figures of several music artists (including Jackson). On the other hand, if we take into account all the discussions in which Harout72 has been involved to date, I think there has been an attitude of preserving Elvis Presley's inflated figures by Harout72, or even of defending inflated sales figures fabricated by him (Harout72 stated "The same goes for Presley, just the UK has 17.3 million certified units, which generates under 10% of the global music sales, and the UK has launched its certification system in 1973, surely it would've been close to 50 million if they had been certifying since 1958, like the US."), resulting from speculation. And it is exactly the same with the current methodology that governs the List. However, this situation is not limited to that, as Harout72's negative attitude towards other users' perspectives can be seen even in discussions that are not related to specific artists, like this one about multi-disc albums sales figures, where users provided references to a Rolling Stone article or even an email from RIAA confirming the double counting. Salvabl (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I Support a TBAN of Harout72 as suggested by user:Snow Rise. I've caught up on reading all this drama, and he seems to be the recurring issue. Pacack (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Salvabl

The user Harout72 has brought this "matter" here again, as he has done in the past, but this time is different from the others. In the List's Talk page there is a discussion about the certified sales percentages requirements that user Harout72 has defended on several occasions, but he has not added a single message to the discussion this time, as can be seen in this section of the Talk page.

He is just doing the same thing he has done in the past: labeling our behavior as disruptive when we express a point of view that he does not support. This is not the first time that user Harout72 has refused discussion and the search for a common consensus, as last February the content of the "Definitions" section of the List (which contains conditions for the management of the List now and in the future) was unilaterally changed by Harout72, even though the matter was being discussed on the List's Talk page at that moment. One of the goals of that change was to prevent any possible future increase in the claimed sales of artists such as Michael Jackson, Madonna or Elton John. And I, despite that attitude, made proposals so that part of the text added by Harout72 could stand, even when direct removal would have been the most appropriate action due to the unilaterality of his action (because of that, and because of statements made by him such as "you guys are wasting your time" directed to other users, it is appropriate to assert that this is a case of WP:OWNERSHIP). I think there has been too much collective patience with user Harout72. And what he did after I objected to that change was to start this discussion at ANI, which was centered on accusations about the possible existence or non-existence of racial bias in the List, which was simply a red herring to divert attention from the unilateral change made by Harout72 in the "Definitions" section.

I have always offered him an open door to dialogue, which he has rejected through accusations about alleged intentions to inflate Jackson's figures. Did I vote in favor of increasing the claimed sales figure of the Thriller album in this recent RfC? No, because I didn't even think it was the right time to discuss it, and to avoid possible conflicts between users. My only involvement in that RfC consisted of short messages providing information that I thought might be useful; to which the user Harout72, if he disagreed, did not even reply. Despite his knowledge about music sales, he simply refuses to get the point, and maybe that is the reason why his impartiality, and therefore the impartiality of the List, has been questioned. I, in my recent messages (see here) supported an eventual removal of The Beatles' 600M figure, stating at the same time that the coherent would be to remove Presley's 500M figure as well, since, I think it is a fact that it would be incorrect for both music acts to have the same highest claimed sales figure (500M) when The Beatles' certified sales are almost 60M higher than Presley's. Considering Harout72's words this idea must seem bad to him, but what he has not remarked is that I also stated in my message this: "and there would have to be a discussion about what to do with Michael Jackson's 400M figure, or change other figures", as I see as a good option to leave only the 350M claimed sales figure for Jackson and the 360M claimed sales figure for Presley; I think it would make the list more accurate. But leaving all that aside now, I think this new accusation made by Harout72 is just another attempt to maintain full control over the List and its claimed sales figures. Salvabl (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the three of you (editors named in this complaint) on the merits, just some friendly advice: the length of your comments is hindering resolution of this issue (and it was the same at the last ANI). It's not your fault, but there's three of you, and while individually your comments aren't too long, together it's 3x for the rest of us to read, and the substance of your (collective) message is getting lost amidst the total length. Just my opinion/advice. Levivich 05:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I almost said the same thing myself: These responses are so lengthy and bogged down with music methodology lingo that it scares people potentially offering outside help away. I think it's part of the reason why this still isn't resolved after so many prior discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a word limit placed on an RfC on the page, for any one reply. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the length of my messages, I'll try to write shorter messages in the future. The problem here has its origin years ago, and retrospective is necessary in order to have context about this situation. Yet, there are many actions by Harout72 that I've had to omit in order not to create an extremely long message, and which are relevant, such as his opinion about a racist message, or his silence after being asked for sources to support the inflated figure of 24M that he added to the certified sales of Presley's Christmas Album. The worst part of all this is that I'm being compelled to not talk about music sales as we should because Harout72 himself has also stopped doing so, choosing ANI reports instead. Salvabl (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Iptesh Kumar Meher

Iptesh Kumar Meher (talk · contribs) is persistently restoring unsourced, mildly promotional content to the article Gandabahali. The article (about a village in India) was created by Iptesh Kumar Meher in February 2022, and all IKM's edits have been either to this article, or to other articles adding links to it, e.g. here. Back in March-April, it was draftified several times (by three different editors) – that's not strictly in accordance with WP:DRAFTIFY, but it was pretty obvious that the topic is notable and speaking only for myself, I hoped that it would be possible to get through to IKM and explain why this kind of text was not acceptable in article space. However, IKM only responded by moving the draft back, or by creating new versions – see his creation and move log.

IKM has had multiple cautions and warnings, some templated, several personalised, including this on 22 March where I tried to explain just what the problem is with his preferred text. He is aware of his user talk page [49]. On 13 March, IKM got a 72-hour block for disruptive editing, but there is no sign of him understanding what the problem was; he simply keeps restoring the exact same text (including his own name in the list of notable people), [50], [51], [52], [53] (etc). In July, this led to the article being nominated for AfD where it was speedy kept; I restored the copyedited version and gave him another final warning, but today IKM has once again reverted to his own preferred version. Warnings don't help, clearly, and neither do explanations. A block from article space might make him pay attention, perhaps? --bonadea contributions talk

• Virtually the whole article is fluff, unsourced. Needs to be stripped to a stub that is sourced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Iptesh Kumar Meher (talk · contribs), despite this report, despite many warnings, has refused to engage and is continuing to put unsourced fluff into the article. A block from this article, at the very least, to get their attention would be nice.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a BLP topic ban for Jaydenstyy

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

---

Jaydenstyy seems to be incapable of following simple directions, which is evident given the multitude of warnings on their talk page (and their block on commons.) But the bigger issue is their poor editing of BLPs, creating BLPs and adding PII to BLPs without sources or with blatantly unreliable sources.

They have created 4 pages - 2 of which were redirected (one they've reverted after it was moved to draft, and restored it despite a warning and having no reliable sources.)

• [Fred Osmond - sourced to iMDb, a spongebob wiki and Wikipedia itself.
• Owen Dennis which has since been successfully redirected but was originally entirely sourced to Fandom
• Raymond Aguilar - sent to draft multiple times, poorly sourced
• Alex Abrahantes also poorly sourced in it's original iteration, however I've cleaned up the blatantly misrepresented sources and unsourced cruft.

This doesn't even begin to get into their edits to existing BLPs where they are adding cruft and unsourced content, but I can provide diffs for that as well if needed. In the mean time, I think this more than warrants a tban if not an outright block, also for their absolute failure to ever communicate - they have never once responded to concerns about their editing or on article talk pages. They've also been warned by multiple people and been given BLP ds notices. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Does WP:CIR come into play here? This is poor stuff. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean yeah, I wouldn't oppose a block based on that too. I don't know if it's an age thing combined with incompetence (which I suspect may be part of it), I'm tired of cleaning up their mess. The more I look, the more egregious problems I find. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban for obvious reasons. However, if this user starts adding unreferenced or poorly referenced content in other articles, I would support support and indefinite sight block. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support block It is worth pointing out that of this user has only edited a talk page twice(not counting any deleted revs), out of nearly 700 edits, has not responded to any editor's concerns, including this ANI despite editing within 5 minutes of me making this very comment. If they won't engage, and they won't improve, it's just disruptive editing. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn for now, I see the editor is engaging. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, since responding to my talk page, they've made several more edits, including to a BLP without adequate sourcing yet again, so they don't appear to have understood or learned any lessons. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

And they have a page full of warnings for similar behavior, and you made them aware of BLPDS back in March, so I think a DS BLP topic ban is reasonable, until they can show they understand the sourcing requirements. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish and now with this and this comment, I'm thinking an outright indefinite block would be more appropriate. Call it WP:CIR, WP:DE, WP:IDHT...at this point the disruption just needs to end. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Based on above, it appears they lack the ability to competently collaborate with other editors. I would support an indefinite block. ––FormalDude talk 18:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• I have blocked them indefinitely, see here for my extended rationale. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Pranek

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

---

Pranek (talk · contribs) appears to be an obvious sockpuppet of Paul Hartal (talk · contribs) based on their edits and behaviour. They've taken a fair bit of umbrage to the edits I recently made to the article, since they believe only they/Paul Hartal have any right to say what should be in the article, and have demanded it be deleted because of this edit removing a completely unsourced section and three exhaustive CV-styled lists. Since the original account is, to my knowledge, indef'd for legal threats that (to my knowledge) have yet to be retracted, I don't want to give them a chance to levy another one when it's clear they're not going to be constructive here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked. That was the most obvious sock I have seen in a while. In good faith, I think we still need to address the concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Totally agreed, but there's nothing further I can do when it comes to the content side as there aren't any usable sources online. I'm going to take a harder look at what I removed, but it still isn't going to change the fact that the issues this article has that aren't related to the subject themselves demanding changes is entirely content-related. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If a section is completely unsourced, then it should be removed, btw, just not by him. That he is socking doesn't change the fact that he may be right about the edit. I left a detailed explanation on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Proposal: A temporary speedy deletion criterion for Lugnuts' stubs

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

---

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

---

Hello all, One of my first forays into ANI in a while, but I feel it's important. I am certain just about everyone here is familiar with the timeline of Lugnut's indefinite blocking, but I'll throw together a quick timeline for those who aren't. User Lugnuts, with many edits and numerous stubs, was indefinitely blocked by ArbCom decision. As the support for blocking him mounted, Lugnuts put out a message of defiance here, proclaiming that he had not only intentionally inserted copyvio, but also filled his many stubs (93,547 articles total, by his own count), with intentional mistakes. Certainly, it did seem like trolling on the way out, but due diligence needed to be performed. After a request was opened at WP:CCI, which I accepted, we swept through some of his edits, spot-checking a sizable swathe of them, finding no intentional copyvio (by him, anyway), and that case has now been closed. Nevertheless, I feel we should address his articles. To be frank, a large percent of them are of questionable notability and little encyclopedic value. Perhaps he was also trolling about intentional mistakes, but who can tell, and how many of his articles actually enhance Wikipedia by existing? I would rather Wikipedia delete 50,000 articles of tenuous value than allow them to fester unseen for years, unlikely to be touched by an editor again. Therefore, I suggest creating a temporary speedy deletion criterion, much the same as with User:Neelix in 2015, although it was for redirects,in that case, also raised before ANI, the consensus was in favor of the criterion, "X1", which was active until 2018. I propose a similar deletion criterion, that "Any administrator may delete any stub article made by User:Lugnuts, as uncontroversial maintenance, under the new "X3" criteria, if it is reasonable to believe that the article would not survive an AFD of its own." -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This really isn't the place to suggest new speedy criteria; have you tried asking at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This is, I think, the wrong venue for this. Perhaps the Village Pump or Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano and Malcolmxl5: I opened it here because this is where the Neelix criterion was decided, although I'm amenable to moving it if people disagree with that. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

There is an enormous difference between disruptive redirects and actual articles, most (all?) of which are sourced in some way. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not sure a CSD cat is the way to go, although I admit there is some urgency and I don't have a better idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Agreed, it's a workable solution IMO, but not a perfect one. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The main problem here is that if you're asking admins to make a decision on "(whether) the article would not survive an AFD" then you're effectively asking them to perform WP:BEFORE. Which is time-consuming, and may end up with us clogging WP:DRV up if they don't do it properly. I wonder if we could tinker with PROD instead? Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: That could definitely work, good with procedural close and seeing what the ArbCom RFC ends up looking like, taking it to PROD if needed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

As there is no behavioural element to it, your proposal can go elsewhere leaving this board free for actual incidents requiring administrators attention. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggest procedural close. In the case of Neelix articles there was an open ANI regarding an administrator's actions that led to the proposal. There's no such preliminary here. Additionally, it seems that this proposal is premature before the ArbCom RFC on mass deletion, which may address this issue.Jahaza (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone seeking to delete his articles should simply PROD or AFD them. In the case of Neelix, nearly all of his redirects were nonconstructive. This isn't entirely the case with Lugnuts since a good chunk of his stubs are expandable. I am not saying Lugnuts' articles were good, but we shouldn't just delete them indiscriminately. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose while Lugnuts' conduct in recent years, especially when articles he created were at AfD, was frustrating, I believe he created the stubs in good faith. His decision to go out memorably does not demonstrate a need for rapid handling of the stubs. Rather than flooding AfD, suggest though that AtDs including redirects be considered as that was the outcome of a portion of the stub discussions. Star Mississippi 02:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This honestly feels like gravedancing at this point. Out of 93,000 articles, I'm sure a good number are at least plausibly notable and expandable. He's gone, move on. Curbon7 (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose We are here to build an encyclopedia, though Lugnuts got carried away. Each and every one of their stubs need a thorough BEFORE. Just like any other article we think about deleting. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wrong venue Let's discuss this idea during preliminaries to the ArbCom-mediated discussion. AN/I is not renowned for rational discussion. Ovinus (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Clearly the ArbCom RfC is the place this will end up being decided. I've turned several Lugnuts stubs into C+ class articles over the last week. Not all of them can get that far, but plenty have stuff we can write on them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

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

• Just noting that I disagree with the close characterizing this is as "SNOW opposition". Four opposes over one day is not WP:SNOW. It's "SNOW wrong-venue" and should be considered a "procedural close". I support this proposal but didn't !vote because this is the wrong venue. When it's in the right venue, it might not gain consensus, but it won't be SNOW opposed. Levivich 17:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, there was also substantial recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Reviewing_the_Stubs, where it was mentioned a few times that that wasn't the right venue either. Clearly it needs to happen somewhere.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of Neelix

I blocked two of their socks yesterday (see the August 15th report here). The socks had been heavily involved in AfDs, a few of which remain open. If an admin or knowledgeable editor would like to review the edits, there are a few discussions that should probably be closed and/or votes struck.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I tagged Neelix as banned per WP:3X. There's a snowball's chance in hell of an unblock, but it's done for formalities sake. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Izivy reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

I reported him for vandalism at WP:AIV, but he retaliated by reporting me even though I never vandalized! [54] He' thinks I started an edit war on KDSO-LD, when I was merely correcting his errors. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay im sorry okay, i will revert all the vandalism's that i did. Izivy (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I will just quit wikipedia. Thanks for everything. All the edits, all the reverted edits. Izivy (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Administrator note @Izivy and Mvcg66b3r: I strongly recommend you both go find some different articles to work on — there's no need for this report (nor the report at WP:AIV), so no one is getting blocked. Take a moment to chill, then find something else to edit — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 02:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime, I know you may decline me when I request rollback its because I have a level 3 warning and it looks like i started an edit war. Izivy (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know, I still have 100 mainspace edits, 100 more to go. Izivy (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well then you've got 100 great edits to make don't focus on permissions, focus on making Wikipedia a tiny bit better — everything else will just come with time — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 03:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I can not only focus on making Wikipedia a tiny bit better, Rollback can help me a lot, even can make me use cool tools and features such as SWViewer, Huggle, and even more. I not only want rollback, I want to be a pending changes reviewer, autopatrolled, page mover, new page reviewer, file mover, mass message sender, and event coordinator. Izivy (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User:BJ3789 has consistently been adding unscaled images to articles, even after being asked to stop several times

User:BJ3789 has consistently been adding unscaled images to articles, even after being asked to stop several times. This includes articles such as gubernatorial nominees[55], the 2018 Guamanian general election (reverted)[56], the 2020 Puerto Rico House of Representatives election (reverted twice)[57][58][59], yet continues to add the unscaled images which sometimes fill up entire pages (See old revision of 2020 Puerto Rico Senate election[60][61]. I ask that he be warned. Lamaredia (Kasper D.L) (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lamaredia2. Before reporting an editor to this noticeboard, you should try to discuss the problem with them, and explain what they should be doing differently. I do not see where you have discussed it with them, except for a couple of comments in edit summaries. That is not sufficient. You need to discuss it on their talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, thank you, I'll do that. I've never written in here before, so I was unaware of that rule, and rereading the box at the top, I've realised I missed it. Lamaredia (Kasper D.L) (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Stephanie921 refusing to engage

Tldr: I try to remove two sections from Abortion in Vermont, Stephanie921 reverts my deletions multiple times but does not show up on the talk page to discuss.

Full timeline (I am also the IP starting with 123 geolocating to Oxford):

1. 26 July: I remove the Terminology and Context section.
2. 26 July: Hey man im josh reverts my edit. I do not consider him to be involved as he has expressed disinterest in this issue.
3. 26 July: I start a discussion on the talk page. I get a few vitriolic comments from VictimOfEntropy but not much else.
4. 26 July: Stephanie921 comes along and makes a series of incorrect claims. She does not talk about the disputed content.
5. 26 July: I rebut her false claims.
6. 27 July: A day later, all three had made plenty of edits but ignored the discussion. I state that I will reinstate the deletions.
7. 27 July: I reinstate the deletions.
8. 27 July: Stephanie reverts my edit, incorrectly claiming that my edits have been removed multiple times.
9. 28 July: I cite WP:ENGAGE and state that I will reinstate my version if there is no objection within a week.
10. 7 August: More than a week later, I reinstate my deletions.
11. 7 August: Stephanie reverts 12 minutes later, being under the mistaken impression that Not how Wikipedia works. People not responding to you doesn't mean you can get your way. If people agreed with you, they'd say so. If people disagreed they'd say so. If people don't want to talk to you that's not them saying yes and you don't get permission to revert the article anyway..
12. 16 August: I remind her of the dispute on her talk page and get reverted soon after. It does not seem to me that she is willing to cooperate.

I have posted a total of five reminders/talkback templates on her talk page, some of which were removed citing harassment (26 July, 27 July, 28 July, 7 August, 16 August). She has also found time to make close to 400 edits since the beginning of the dispute.

This is a collaborative project, I do not have to deal with this stonewalling and have done more than enough to encourage discussion on the talk page. 82.132.218.153 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Before I get told off for not notifying her, she removed the ANI notification ([62]). 82.132.218.153 (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in since I got pinged.

I'm not sure where we had the discussion, but I do remembering engaging with you at one point regarding my revert in point #2. I stepped back from involvement and didn't revert again because you made a valid point that the context and terminology were not specific to Vermont. That doesn't mean I agree with removing the content, but it left me in a place that I really couldn't really take either side, so I excused myself from the dispute. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

And again ([63]), this time a different section of the article. I started a talk page section three weeks ago (talk:Abortion_in_Vermont#Anti-abortion_views_and_activities), she hasn't responded since but still reverts. 82.132.215.94 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• I concur with the report. This user has shown total failure to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Just on this page (ANI), this user made 3 reverts over their poor reading of WP:OUTING[64][65][66] and refused to engage in any discussion with me.[67] Editorkamran (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

IP 98.231.157.169 (Davidian) bludgeoning at Armenian Genocide

Hi there I am sorry to disturb, but I am just a bit tired of assuming good faith and seeing this endless disruptive bludgeoning at the Armenian Genocide article by the IP Davidian. They refuse to edit themselves and since March 2021, they have assembled around 390 edits on the Armenian Genocide talk page. To answer their long edits takes a lot of time, and they have repeatedly used some words which might be understood in a derogative way, (in my culture it is a no-go) and have been warned on the Armenian Genocide talk page and also their personal talk page. I am not sure how to ping an IP or make a formal complaint, so I just link to their contributions if this is ok. User:98.231.157.169. I suggest an indef. Topic ban on the Armenian Genocide and its talk page until they begin to edit themselves and after they began to edit themselves keep the topic ban to the article Armenian Genocide article for 3 months. And they should create an account to edit, something I have repeatedly suggested.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I have more to say on this, but my first question is: Paradise Chronicle, would you be willing to re-file this at WP:Arbitration enforcement? It's a DS-covered topic area and Davidian is formally aware. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This is pretty bad bludgeoning and refusal to get the point. Normally we don't start with a topic ban for an IP that hasn't edited the article at AE. I'm more inclined to do a regular admin block and see if they learn from the experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, of course I'd be willing. But Dennis Brown was faster. Important to me is that the article comes to peace. Its an FA and it is not fair that editors repeatedly lose time responding to IP Davidian. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Speediness is next to godliness. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked one month. It's a dynamic IP, so DS is kind of pointless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

If they come back doing the same, then I will set it up as DS, likely with a topic ban. This is their one chance to drop the stick. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism

• 85.140.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Kleinpecan (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• That's a pretty wide range. Lots of reverted edits but also a lot that have not been. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  85.140.0.0/21 looks to me like a proxy network. I’ve raised it at the open proxy noticeboard. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  OK, nothing doing on that basis so we'll simply take action against individual IPs if needed. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor 24.21.161.89

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

---

User:24.21.161.89 was warned against disruptive editing five times in July 2022. Those were in regards to edits on Killing of Jayland Walker and Coprophagia. It is now August 2022, and the user has been posting and reposting original research/editorial material here, here and here on Watermelon Stereotype. Upon reviewing the IP user's history, it also seems they have been inserting original material into quotes in sources and edit-warring with inflammatory personal attacks on other users, inserting argumentative opinions in the body of Book of Mormon, among other things. They have done similar actions on Coprophagia, but I won't post direct links here because the topic is human consumption of feces and each one would require a trigger warning. In any case, I am asking for an administrator for a speedy SBAN on this IP user and to protect Watermelon Stereotype and Book of Mormon from IP users for at least a month. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. It belongs on the talk page. This editor above reverts other editors work and claims it's "Vandalism" when in fact it is good faith edits. If they disagree with the edits then revert them and discuss on the talk page. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with what @Kire1975 has stated here. The IP editor here has been pushing WP:OR and unhelpful opinions, which has resulted in edit warring on the Book of Mormon page. They have yet to respond to my reply on the article's talk page. Rollidan (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So at what point does "Be Bold" when editing Wikipedia under WP:BRD become "pushing unhelpful opinions". 24.21.161.89 (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SATISFY. Kire1975 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at all the edits, but the claim of "fraud" by 24.21.161.89 was supported by the citation [68] titled "Mormonism exposed : Joseph Smith an imposter and the Book of Mormon a fraud" from 1839. It would probably be helpful if the IP was a bit less abrasive, but you guys sure you are being open minded? Because it does look like a lot of reverts are going on. Like changing "little evidence" to "no credible evidence". Is there a source that says either of these? Then that is what we need to go with, right? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• I've blocked the IP. It's clear to me from the choice of articles that this is blatant trolling.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The copy/paste block appeal on their talk page looks pretty tone deaf too, though not surprising giving the WP:NOTHERE attitude. KoA (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and NPA violation from IP

User:94.17.191.11 has been vandalising the Big Jock Knew page. When I reverted his edits and posted the standard warning template, he wrote this. He also restored his version of the page (Which I have since reverted). But I believe this IP is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that's nice. Unfortunately, IPs don't qualify for NOTHERE blocks. But it's supposedly static, so I've blocked for 6 months with TP access revoked (since they used their talkpage to attack you). Bishonen | tålk 07:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC).

User:Moonlight Entm

It all began when content was added to the Le Sserafim article. I reverted the editor's edit since one of the sources was not usable. The main issue was that it was written by a contributor, which wasn't allowed per WP:FORBESCON. The information I provided on their talk page was correct, but they continued to revert my edits. The source was unreliable. I have tried to communicate, but it isn't working too well for me. There has already been a breach of WP:3RR from the editor. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 06:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Moonlight Entm: You've been unblocked for barely two weeks and are already edit warring? ––FormalDude talk 07:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring, it was clearly a confusion between both of us, he thought i use an a unreliable source Forbescon but i used Forbes however what i did not noted was that Forbes is only considered reliable when its written by their staff. Moonlight Entm (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You are still confused. Forbescon refers to WP:FORBESCON - which is about Forbes contributors and cannot be used in articles. It is still referring to the same site. As far as Forbes overall reliability, that's debatable too especially with their lackluster reporting even from staff in the last few years but Forbes contributor pieces are generally pretty worthless. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• After looking at their history, I'd like to suggest a lengthy block or at minimum, a pblock from mainspace per WP:CIR as they don't appear to be understanding what they're being told despite multiple editors breaking it down as simple as possible for them, which leads to them consistently edit warring all over the place. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Range block needed for Cerebral atrophy article

Cerebral atrophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has had large blocks of text removed w/o explanation by three IPs in this order

1. 37.238.236.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 37.238.236.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 37.238.236.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Would someone please add a range block and/or PP? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

37.238.236.0/24 blocked for two weeks. Please let me know if the disruption continues. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Tokyo is poop

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

---

Tokyo is poop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new vandalism-only account, with "[name] must be killed" edit summaries. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done blocked by User:Tamzin.

Yes, and revdelled. There's a lock request already pending at m:Steward requests/Global § Global lock for Tokyo is poop, if any stewards are about. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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

IP: 2601:406:4103:230:7109:337F:CD20:EE7

Administrators please block this IP 2601:406:4103:230:7109:337F:CD20:EE7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as again this IP is doing Unconstructive edits on Maddam Sir, Pandya Store and Disha Vakani again by replacing their names with Nia Sharma through false positive.Pri2000 (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The /64 has a month-long history of unsourced, unexplained editing. They’ve been blocked previously for 72 hours for disruptive editing. I’ve blocked for one week. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from dewiki

Image commons:File:SKATE-Befehl_No.5-Bomber-Group_14._Oktober_1944.jpg was originally uploaded to dewiki in 2005, then copied to enwiki in 2006, then transferred to commons in 2012. Somebody on the way entered a transcription of the perceived image text into its description. Today, the original uploader asked here (in German) who, and when wrote the transcription. The answer should be somewhere in the deleted versions [69]. Thank you, --MBq (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@MBq:. Here's the full history:

Extended content

(diff) 02:13, 30 December 2011 . . Fbot (talk | contribs | block) 2,934 bytes (BOT: Assessing Move to Commons Priority) (diff) 06:38, 10 September 2011 . . Fbot (talk | contribs | block) 2,920 bytes (BOT: Flagging file as eligible for transfer to Commons) (diff) 05:47, 26 March 2010 . . Plastikspork (talk | contribs | block) m 2,880 bytes (General formatting, fn/fnb, mn/mnb, NamedRef/NamedNote -> ref/note per WP:TFD) (diff) 15:42, 16 March 2009 . . Mugs2109 (talk | contribs | block) 2,835 bytes (Added Template:Information) (diff) 20:39, 30 March 2006 . . Svencb (talk | contribs | block) 233 bytes ({{PD-BritishGov}}) (diff) 02:05, 20 March 2006 . . Kelisi (talk | contribs | block) 392 bytes (→‎Licensing) (diff) 02:04, 20 March 2006 . . Kelisi (talk | contribs | block) 384 bytes (Page showing part of the orders for SKATE (the RAF air raid on Braunschweig on 15 October 1944). This image is borrowed from de:WP and its original upload information can be found [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:SKATE-Befehl_No.5-Bomber-Group_14._Oktob)

As you can probably guess, the main content was added by Mugs2109. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am the original uploader on dewiki, way back in 2005. If indeed Mugs2109 wrote the transcription, how come I can’t find it in his/her list of contributions ? Brunswyk (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's in their deleted contributions here. As for the commons transfer process, I don't particularly know. It looks like, simply, the history of the page was not transferred. Over to anyone who knows more about that than me... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I've transferred this information to the original question --MBq (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

User: Gesteinerb

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

---

User Gesteinerb is apparently sock of "Əzərbəyəniləri". He is doing exactly same edits on the exactly same pages and shows exacly same trolling/disruptive behaviour. His previous sock was "Balabanzade", which was blocked recently.

Example diffs: [[70]] - after their disruptive edit was reverted, they now creating such a nonsense on the talk pages with "Azerbaijan is Iran" heading and unrelated comment "Sock of Əzərbəyəniləri Gesteinerb".

May I also ask admins to protect below pages from not autoconfirmed users editing? Getting tired of these editor who comes back again and again... Khurshidbanu Natavan Zand dynasty Balaban (instrument) Karabakh Khanate

--Abrvagl (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

There is already a SPI report open about this user at Sockpuppet investigations/Əzərbəyəniləri — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Aniket Singh Bhadoria

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

---

Aniket Singh Bhadoria (talk) repeatedly inserts the height parameter in the KL Rahul article (page history), but the source they provide is not reliable. They did this in June as well (1, 2..) and it was discussed here and here. Now once again, they are continuing to add it, and were reverted by an editor. (1, 2, 3, 4). I raised this issue on their talk page, but they did not respond or discuss. Then today, they again made the same edits. Please note that user has recently been blocked as well. Thanks, Kpddg ^(talk) 11:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

They clearly lack the competence to edit here, and have ignored every warning and the temporary blocks have never stopped or altered their behaviour. They've made precisely 1 talk comment in their entire time here and that was a “what’s your problem” comment. It’s time for this account to go away. Indeffed. Canterbury Tail talk 11:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Persistent COI disruption at Dave McDonald (radio personality)

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

---

After warnings, East Side Dave (talk · contribs) (also 209.191.1.6 (talk · contribs)) continue to add unsourced, promotional and WP:BLP violation content to the article. East Side has already divulged their identity as Mr. McDonald. Please see page history--long term disruption. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked him - he can appeal if he thinks there's a good reason he should be allowed to edit a page about himself. Deb (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Extending partial blocks for an IP

Hello, I've previously flagged an IP who is removing automated fields from articles twice before (first time, second time). These resulted in the IP range being partially blocked from a number of articles. As disruption is continuing on a daily basis (including a few minutes ago), I'm requesting the following pages also be added to their partial block:

• List of WWE United States Champions
• List of WWE SmackDown Women's Champions
• List of WWE Intercontinental Champions

Pinging @Ohnoitsjamie, @Oshwah, @El C and @Yamaguchi先生 as they've all blocked this IP before. — Czello 13:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Czello, p-block has a technical limit of ten entries, so since we're at 9 currently, there's only one slot left. El_C 13:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Out of those three, List of WWE United States Champions has received the most disruption, so should ideally get the protection. However, this means there's so solution to the ongoing disruption from this IP range. As this has been going on for a while, what can be done to prevent this entirely? — Czello 14:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Save for increasing the number of slots, not much except to semiprotect or increase the range, if feasible. I can't think of anything else. El_C 14:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I "layered" a partial range block on the /35 range for all of the WWE-related pages (10 slots are already filled). It expands into some IPs that are outside of the user's range which isn't ideal, but it's still better than resorting to a full block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Layering partial range blocks is a good technique. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I learned something new. El_C 10:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoke: Majokthefirst

Requesting revocation of TPA for Majokthefirst, who was blocked as a sock, per this nonsense. Curbon7 (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, certainly. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The 15:09 edit was uncivil but the prior edit at 15:08 was a serious personal attack. I agree with @Curbon's request for revocation of TPA, both edits should be reverted and the 15:08 edit should be revdel'ed an egregious personal attack. --ARoseWolf 15:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I just revdel'd the lot. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

IP:2409:4050:E34:6C12:3917:2164:1EDE:9B82

The IP 2409:4050:E34:6C12:3917:2164:1EDE:9B82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is already partially blocked from editing several pages and now when I removed trivial details according to WP:FILMOGRAPHY on Pravisht Mishra he reverted that edit and openly abused me by using "dumb girl" for me in edit summary. Here's link to that edit [71]. Please block this IP so that he doesn't abuse any other editor on Wikipedia.Pri2000 (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I have warned the IP and revision deleted the insulting edit summary. Cullen328 (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators resorting to personal attacks on request for admin action review

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

---

Here filing a complaint regarding the conduct of administrators on an [action review request] I filled.

Admins have been ganging up on me accusing me of seeking "retribution", for "trolling", and for doing "whatever gets the job done", in the request above. These are all bordering or *are* attacks/accusations without evidence against my person.

Thread has been closed and my latest edit has been reverted, and I was suggested to file a complaint here.

This complaint goes specifically towards User:Praxidicae.

Reminder for said admin here.

CarpathianAlien (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

First, I'm not an administrator and my view of your erroneous, silly filing at XRV appeared to be in search of retribution, as there is no reasonable alternative to your poorly filed complaint. I stand by my comment, and given your comments in your unblock requests, I do not for a second believe that your review request was in good faith, especially since you've been unblocked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: "Whatever gets the job done" wasn't an accusation, it was a suggestion that I think a block of your account for WP:CIR and WP:IDHT is warranted, doubly so now. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Praxidicae, have you ever stolen a cursed idol or some such? The level of nonsense with which you regularly have to deal is astounding. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A black cat did cross my path a few months ago. 🐈 meow PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

She cut off a shaman in a parking lot and stole the only spot close to the store. The rest is history. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The shaman that cursed me. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

And now you only can consume organic food. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

lol, the reason for my complaint was stated in my edit which you reverted, but you probably didn't even bother to read it. If my IP was autoblocked that's a different case than an admin potentially not following appropriate policy. Also, I see you continue to make provocative statements, then other editors are wondering why people have issues with your behavior on the project. CarpathianAlien (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You were asked to provide evidence, you did not do so, and the thread was closed. That's about it. Personally, I believe you hit an autoblock, which is still a non-story. You are currently in a hole. You may wish to stop digging. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"hey provide evidence"

• admin closes the thread near-instantly without giving the OP the chance to respond*

"hey you did not provide evidence" CarpathianAlien (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You had about two hours from the first comment pointing out a lack of evidence to it being closed. I don't see how this is "near-instantly". Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, you were wrong, that wasn't trolling. This is trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Both. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No this is trolling

• Petty grudging and battlegrounding. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Someone who isn't named in the complaint(s), please look at their talk page and do the obvious thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I wish, I have better things to do — unfortunately admin behavior on the project seems to be mostly power-tripping and selectively applying policies. I am trying to bring attention to the issue but lol, there really might be no hope. CarpathianAlien (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You made a complaint that was easily disproved. The Blade of the Northern Lights did not block any IP. That’s the end of the matter. Now you’re reduced to complaining about words used. Time to move on. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"Now you’re reduced to complaining about words used." Thanks for proving my point; “rules for thee and not for me" CarpathianAlien (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You really are not listening, are you? The Blade of the Northern Lights did not block any IP. Period. Done deal. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Neither flinging insults about powertripping and selective application of policy, nor "bringing attention to the issue" free of any actual evidence, changes either of those two facts.

Now there are only two possible answers here: either you are making these filings out of ignorance, or you are doing so out of malice. Whichever you prefer, as long as your complaints are free of evidence, you are wasting everyone's time. If you are really looking for something about which there might be no hope, it is in convincing us of a single thing without that evidence. Ravenswing 08:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You’ve used a few words of your own. I’m not complaining. Time to move on. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If you really want to present evidence, look at TBotNL's blocks and tell us which IP block you think is connected to your complaint and give compelling reason as to why that is so. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Kapieli2017, consistently violate the RFC

Kapieli2017 (talk · contribs), consistently violate the consensus reach on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#RFC: What to put in the 'host city' section of the infobox. The edits has been reverted and then re-added. --Aleenf1 23:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Mass revert of 2803:9800:A504:7D78:0:0:0:0/64

2803:9800:A504:7D78:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Notification will be to most recently used address 2803:9800:A504:7D78:8032:D844:A86A:37CF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The /64 has recently been blocked for the second time in about a week. Looking through the contributions they all appear to be from the same person. None of the contributions appear to have edit summaries. Many appear to remove unsourced content, but there are also many that appear to add unsourced content. To avoid anyone having to individually scrutinize each edit, I'd like to see if there is consensus to presume the edits are problematic and mass revert every edit made by the range in mainspace up to the most recent block. PhantomTech[talk] 03:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted much of it a bit ago, and Stephanie921 has been dealing with other stuff. None of their edits seem to constitute an improvement to the article. It's all either adding unsourced content, removing content without explanation, or doing weird stuff with logos and thereby blowing the infoboxes up to excessive size. Even the removal of unsourced stuff is actually highly questionable, since it seems to be either concurrent with unhelpful edits which serve no useful purpose, or replaces a (probably actually sourced, though not inline-cited) list of specific countries with " and international" (or something similar), which leaves things in a worse state than before. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Am eating pizza atm, have low battery and need an hour more of sleep. I'll revert their other edits once I've done those things but if anyone wants to beat me to it, then go for it Stephanie921 (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Persistent removal of AfC templates despite innumerable warnings.

Johnvertasilo999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

on

Draft:Daniel Larze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user (earlier edited as an IP and as an account soft-blocked for username issues) has now removed the AfC templates from this page a total of at least twelve times, despite being told not to via edit summaries, the talkpages of both accounts, and on multiple occasions. Removal of templates: [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81] [82][83][84]

Yeah, and there's no end in sight.

Can this please be put a stop to?

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and this is almost certainly a sockpuppet of:

Daniel Larze (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Please salt the draft once the G5 is done. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Johnvertasilo999 indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing (and tagged for sockpuppetry) by Materialscientist who also G5'd and salted Draft:Daniel Larze. (Not to be confused with Draft:Daníel Larze) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)