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

Reporting Wlaak due to, what I believe is, disruptive editing at Syriac Orthodox Church. I initially suggested DRN or RfC, but this is probably an issue for ANI. The situation, from my point of view:

• Wlaak made a number of edits to the "Name & Identity" section earlier this month, which was partly reverted. A quite long discussion between Wlaak and three other editors was ongoing, with this being the last version for a while.
  • Note: Among these three other editors, one have been in a dispute (DRN, ANI) with Wlaak prior to this. And so have I.
• I made a comment on the recent additions, suggesting that most of it was WP:OR (or irrelevant). I further suggested that WP:RS secondary sources would be preferable. One of the third party users (i.e. not involved in similar disputes before) agreed;
• I reverted most of it suggesting that new proposals should be discussed first (while avoiding WP:SYNTH and relying on secondary WP:RS).
• Wlaak restored it.
• I clarifed that my initial comment served as a suggestion and notified all users involved; both third party users agreed [3] [4] and one added further suggestions, which I agreed to. I once again suggested that any new proposals should be on secondary WP:RS discussed first here.
• Wlaak restored it again, which is disruptive behaviour in my opinion. Shmayo (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging @Asilvering and @Robert McClenon as the users that if I recall correctly have tried to meditate the previous versions of this dispute. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As Sesquilinear says, I tried to mediate an earlier version of this dispute. This is a content dispute that is worsened by allegations of conduct, and I think that the allegations of conduct are persistent enough that they are a conduct problem. I usually start dealing with a content dispute by asking the parties what specific paragraphs and sentences they want to change in an article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). I will ask that question at this point. If there are straight answers, maybe progress can be made toward resolving the content dispute. If there aren't straight answers, then maybe we should consider a topic-ban again. What exactly does each editor want to change in an article (or leave the same)? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, again:

  I want the section to remain as it is and not be removed because the statements from three consecutive Patriarchates, Mor Ignatius Aphrem I Barsoum, Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, and a 2015 Publication from the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East, represent the official position of the Syriac Orthodox Church, not private views. The Patriarch presides over the Holy Synod, which is the highest authority in the Church, and his statements define the Church’s religious, spiritual, and administrative matters (see the article itself), hence they are more than relevant to be included in the section. Primary sources are valid to use here because they are clearly attributed according to WP:ACCORDINGTO, and they concern the Church’s official definition of its own identity. I was adding secondary sources as well to strengthen the section, but this process has been halted because two ANI cases, one of which was reopened after being closed, were filed against me instead of following the normal process through a Request for Comment.

  If there are concerns about WP:UNDUE, additional sourced material about the Assyrian identity can be added, as I stated on the talk page. The article already mentions the use of the Assyrian name by parishes in America, the ethnic composition including both Syriac-Arameans and Assyrians, and the former neutrality stance of Mor Ignatius Aphrem I, hence I asked another editor to provide the source of a Assyrian favorable position. Wlaak (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wlaak, this is going rather beyond @Robert McClenon's ask, at least as I understand it. To understand what the content dispute is, we don't (yet) need to know the whys and wherefores, explanations of anyone's behaviour, or any of that. At this point we're just trying to understand what the basic terms of the argument are. "I want the section under the heading Foo to say 'blah, blah'." "I want it to remain like it was in diff x." "I want to add this particular quote to this particular section." That sort of thing. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Asilvering - First, you have correctly restated what my usual question is. Second, it is true that User:Wlaak went beyond answering my question. However, they did answer my question in the first sentence, and so the extra words can be disregarded. They did say that they want to leave the article as it is. I haven't seen a concise statement by User:Shmayo as to what they want to change in the article. They have said that maybe WP:ANI rather than DRN or RFC is the forum that they want, but I don't understand what they are saying is either the content issue or the conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Aha okay, sorry @Robert McClenon for misunderstanding. In that case: I want the section to remain as it is right now. Wlaak (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I brought this to ANI as a conduct issue (which I attempted to highlight in bold). My intention was not to discuss the content of the Syriac Orthodox Church article here; if content discussion is necessary, the other editors should be notified as well. In my initial post, I provided links containing my suggestion for the section "Name and identity": [5] [6]. To summarize my suggestion, if still relevant to this case: 1. Merge or remove content related to "stance" of Aphrem I Barsoum, depending of relevance. If relevant, it should solely be based on secondary WP:RS. I agree with the third-party editor, who suggested that "statements" from individual patriarchs is not relevant and should be excluded. 2. Remove paragraphs concerning the "stance" of the other two patriarchs (per WP:NOR and suggestion from third-party editor). 3. If anything, it should include the Synod's statement (without WP:SYNTH). 4. Rely on secondary WP:RS, avoiding any further WP:OR. This version should serve as basis. Shmayo (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

• A WP:TBAN was suggested here less than a month ago, but closed with no consensus. The user has also been recommended not to edit within this topic area here.

Shmayo (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• See the previous closed ANI filed, no consensus was reached for you to delete everything in the section. I took in feedback from the three other.

  the other editor who I was in a dispute with unarchived the ANI, he was initially in favor of my edits, in which he himself contributed to and added a quote which you were against.

  the edits i had made was in no sense rejected by the other editors until you came, I worked with the feedback given, hence another editor then said "Thank you, it looks much better."

  you came in, gave feedback in which most was incorporated, your points were:

  to remove "stands as the latest formal statement regarding the ethnic identity of the Church's faithful" (WP:SYNTH), this was done.

  you said to merge the paragraph of Mor Ignatius Aphrem I and to remove the quote, in which two editors (me and the other editor who unarchived a ANI) agreed upon having, nevertheless, this was done as well.

  despite this, you came back a few days later, without the intent to help implement your own feedback, but to delete nearly the entire section, which had no consensus whatsoever, i then restored it. that is not disruptive editing.

  you said to highlight the Holy Synod statement, this was also done.

  you also made feedback on using WP:RS, in which has been incorporated in the first paragraph but stopped after the other editor had unarchived a settled ANI for the third time, being disruptive and halting the development of the section.

  5h ago, a reply to the article was made stating "I am proposing for a WP:RFC, It seems we are unable to establish consensus regarding this, any inputs from a third party editor would be really appreciated." indicating that there was no established consensus for you to delete the entire section, this was said from the editor you quoted to have agreed with you, see this, he stated it would be better of without the quote, which was done.

  you took the other editors words as a final say, with no chance at discussion nor reasoning, what you and one other person agrees with, is not consensus if the other parties object to it or haven't agreed with it.

  you also said that you'd have to file for a RfC, not a ANI, this is not fitting and is a unnecessary process which could be handled with a RfC.

  i'd want to request a TBAN on Shamyo as well, not out of revenge but since if these are the grounds for him to request a TBAN on me on, I feel there is a lot of ground in which Shmayo should get a TBAN, I must note that out of awareness to WP:NPOV, a TBAN should be on both parties.

  you have been accused of having been anti-Aramean name on following, see this, this, this, this, this, this, and this (goes back all the way to 2008). Looking at your global contributions, it all seems to be on Aramean-related articles, and not in a way of contributing with edits but rather only objecting in talk pages, filing ANI's etc. this raises doubts whether if your objection is with the content or the Aramean ethnic identity.

  for any third party admin or resolver, please see the archived thread (by another editor who has been opposing the Aramean name, both him and Shamyo being Assyrian WikiPedians per their user talk pages) in which I detailed my defense/response, see that here.

  the Syriac Orthodox Church just got its peer-review review and constantly involving me in ANI's (only filed by Assyrian WikiPedians, Shmayo and the other editor) is disruptive and hinders me from contributing to, in this case, the peer-review. Wlaak (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a Aramean vs. Assyrian related topic, it is a Church and I am not compromising the Assyrian name for the Aramean name, which the warning was about (see the warning issued by admin on ANI you referenced).

a TBAN was not closed without consensus, majority was against and latest comment was "Any sanction should be two-way." since the other editor had POV and following Aramean related edits, please refrain from twisting things. Wlaak (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that the latest comment stated that TBAN should likely be two-way, I'll note that such a ban, had it happened, would have been "The Levant, broadly construed"; topic bans are generally broadly construed in order to avoid such arguments over whether an edit "really" counts. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlaak, I find this statement of yours somewhat disingenuous when I find an extended discussion about whether the article should or shouldn't be in WP:Assyria on the talk page. (If this was brought up in the previous ANI thread, my apologies for overlooking it in all the diffs.) This is absurdly tendentious behaviour and I'd like to commend CF-501 Falcon in particular for handling that with far more patience than I would have been capable of. I cannot believe that whether a particular article ought to be in a particular wikiproject was nearly the question of an RfC. If the editors of a wikiproject say the article is in scope, it's in scope. -- asilvering (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

already discussed in article page Wlaak (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reviewed the history of Syriac Orthodox Church to try to determine why User:Shmayo is alleging disruptive editing or other conduct issues by User:Wlaak. I don't understand what the issue is, unless Shmayo is claiming ownership of Syriac Orthodox Church and so considers four reverts in two weeks to be disruptive. I have not read through all the details of the discussion on Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church, nor the details of what was being reverted. I have seen enough to see that there is a content dispute, and that there has been some reverting that hardly comes anywhere close to being an edit war. Is User:Shmayo just throwing spaghetti at a wall, or can they state concisely what they think has been the conduct issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the few diffs that I provided in my original post would have been useful to determine what I refer to as disruptive behaviour. I never mentioned an edit war; I do not want to engage in one. Now, what I consider disruptive or tendentious:

• I listed my suggestions [7] [8], endorsed by impartial editors [9] [10], but was reverted twice [11] [12]; user ignoring WP:CONSENSUS.
• The user is WP:NOTGETTINGIT; fails to understand why other editors are stressing WP:NOR, the few example I gave were quickly "corrected", which obviously is not the point here.
• Views edits as taking sides [13],

If the diffs provided in my first bullet does not indicate disruptive behaviour or WP:STONEWALLing, I have nothing else to add here. Shmayo (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the current version, what you got consensus on was to remove the quote, which was done. I had challenged the removal of all other Patriarchates and argued for why they are important, the article itself states that the Patriarch "is the general administrator to Holy Synod and supervises the spiritual, administrative, and financial matters of the church."

I may be new to WikiPedia, but what you and one other editor may agree on, with me disagreeing and others not participating in said question is not consensus.

Although, the thing you seem to have had one person to agree with you on (the removal of Patriarchates) seem to not have gone by the other editor who stated: "Alright. That's okay, now the next paragraph which starts with "Although the church is not ethnically exclusive..." needs some formatting. I kinda feel something's wrong or it's not in the correct place in that section."

Your removal had no consensus, yet you pushed it, we were fine with it until you came and brought this to attention which later was implemented (quote, RS) and were set to move to the next paragraphs until you and the other WikiPedian part of your project, what I find disruptive, constantly file ANIs. Wlaak (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, I agree with you that the diffs do not look particularly bad. I think you will change your mind once you read the discussion on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reviewed the discussion at the article talk page that User:Shmayo and User:asilvering have advised me to read. I agree that User:Wlaak is pushing a point of view. That doesn't answer the question of what should be done next. User:Shmayo has also asked that question without answering it. They wrote: Reporting Wlaak due to, what I believe is, disruptive editing at Syriac Orthodox Church. I initially suggested DRN or RfC, but this is probably an issue for ANI. Why not try RFC? Not every case of POV pushing requires sanctions. I haven't reviewed the past record in sufficient detail to determine whether Shmayo is also pushing a point of view, except that their choice to go to WP:ANI without attempting a content dispute resolution is in itself suggestive that they would rather make allegations than present reliable sources to a Request for Comments.
• I am cautious when a filer apparently prefers to discuss conduct before making an effort to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring disruptive behaviour should however, which I think is the case. WP:Third opinion is a way of solving a content dispute. I did recommend DRN or RfC as a next step, one answer suggested ANI, and I agreed that it was probably right to report what I believed was disruptive behaviour. One user (excluding opinions expressed elsewhere) seems to agree, whereas your assessment of it is "POV pushing". Is there any outstanding question for me as the filer? Shmayo (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what is disruptive? four reverts in two weeks is not disruptive, this is the second ANI regarding this article, with no development, a RfC would be better, what is disruptive here in my opinion is the fact that there has constantly been ANI's filed preventing one from further developing WikiPedia.

@Robert McClenon even on the List of Aramean kings article, Shmayo seemed to have deleted the entire article stating no sources are referenced, instead of trying to put sources, (similiar to the Syriac Orthodox Church, where he deleted the entire section of Aramean mentions) he decides to delete the entire article. [14]

constant removals [15][16][17][18](even images of Arameans are removed), [19][20][21](even removes Syriac mentionings), [22], [23], [24], [25] of Aramean mentionings throughout Aramean-related articles, since 2008 is disruptive. (these are just the ones taken from his talk page)

how long is Shmayo going to get away with this? 14 years and counting. Wlaak (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlaak, please consider this from the perspective of the other editors for a moment: they've been carrying on as normal for quite some time, and then suddenly you appear and start dozens of extremely wordy pov-pushing arguments. It's not them who are being disruptive. This isn't a statement about the issue at stake - it's entirely possible that you're correct on the merits in this content dispute - but how you've gone about it. I've suggested it before and will reiterate it: you will have a much better and more successful time trying to get anywhere with this dispute if you walk away from it now, gain more editing experience out of this topic area, and return to it later. -- asilvering (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

english is not my first language, me wording things in a manner of what you think is POV is not my intent, i am not pushing any edits that are POV, although i can understand that you feel i am pushing POV in talk-pages.

when did i "suddenly" appear? if you are talking about to WikiPedia, these "disputes" have always been a problem when it comes to this topic, for too long the Aramean name has been neglected on WikiPedia and me coming and challenging edits that is further neglecting it is, in my opinion not "pov-pushing". everybody pushes a POV, it seems as the POV-pushes from Shmayo and the other editor is of no interest to you? does this only apply to me?

i have been carrying on, i left the changing of Assyrian to Syriac (not even Aramean), as you warned both of us in the previous ANI to, however, even me going to a Church article, improving what was already stated, not compromising any names, i still get followed by other parties.

i am geniounly curious, do you not see the suppression of the Aramean name on WikiPedia?

if you are seeing this as POV, then certainly it is not one-way, but rather two-way.

i am not so active in the topic anymore, i am only maintaining the articles (if i see any POV edit as in the case remove/compromise certain names, i revert and advise to go to talk page), other than that i am working on my draft. Wlaak (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you cite some of my words which are "extremely wordy pov-pushing", i am curious to see how it looks like/what to not push/write. Wlaak (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlaak, look how long your comments are. Whether you intend this or not, the effect is to basically wear down everyone else involved in the discussion until they go away and you "win". As for pov-pushing, for too long the Aramean name has been neglected on WikiPedia and me coming and challenging edits that is further neglecting it, given the contours of this dispute specifically, is a clear expression of pov-pushing. (In most other topic areas, "this topic is neglected on wikipedia" is not pov-pushing.) Again, for all I know, your pov is systematically undervalued on Wikipedia and this needs to be addressed, but "my cause is righteous" is not a good defense here. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I strongly urge you to go work in another topic area for now. You're picking up a lot of bad habits from working in a contentious topic, and I'm increasingly worried that you will be indefinitely blocked or community banned. You cannot fix the problem of Aramean invisibility on wikipedia if you are blocked. Please reconsider your approach. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thank you for your understanding. i will refrain from further edit any articles (if not reverting obvious changes that compromise one name for the other, if that is allowed).

i will stick to working on my draft and see other topics i find interesting Wlaak (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been following this discussion from a distance and have glanced over Wlaak's contributions while this report is in progress. The user seems to have an unusual tendency to eliminate or replace any mention to Assyrians with their own WP:OR, often ignoring WP:RS that support Assyrian identity. A clear example of this occurred just several hours ago as a matter of fact: Wlaak removes a reliable academic source that distinctly supports Shamoun Hanne Haydo's Assyrian identity (see the referenced source, I checked it [26]), replacing "Assyrian" with "Syriac" [27] by citing unknown websites as a main source such as [28]. Apparently Wlaak has been engaged in this tendentious erasure of Assyrian in the article since March, indicating this behavior is not new or even limited to this specific article if you look at their contributions in general. It's not just English Wikipedia either; I know these are different projects, but it's telling that in one project they've been blocked for similar editing patters like in en-wiki [29], and in another they apparently tried to remove mention of Assyrians from the Assyrian genocide article there [30], [31]. Wlaak’s main focus of editing in en-wiki/elsewhere within various articles is basically to erase the word Assyrian and replace it with Arameans or Syriacs.

On the whole, I'd say with certainty that this a tendentious one purpose account mostly dedicated to erasing Assyrian mention, violating policies in the process such as WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and so on. I don't think this topic or even Wikipedia in general benefits from Wlaak's contributions, in fact, it's the opposite. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shamoun Hanne Haydo had already been listed as Syriac, I was restoring the edit a person made, where he compromised the name Syriac for Assyrian, despite all current sources stated Syriac. [32] is a Turkish source writing of his biography book, it is actually the website of the author of the book about him [33]. I have not erased the term "Assyrian", regarding the Dutch page, I was restoring a undiscussed move, or at least that is what I thought, we discussed the matter on my talk page and it seems as it was not a discussed move only done on 27th of March but goes back further than that, the reason I did not see the earlier version was, as a editor pointed out on my talk page, it was mistakingly labeled "minor", thus I oversaw it. No worries, I have no issues with leaving it as it is.

Since my warning, I have not compromised any names in favor of the other, you using the article Shamoun Hanne Haydo is absurd to me, I was reverting what a specific user (dedicated to war-related articles between Kurds and Assyrians) did on the article, he had previously been blocked as a sockpuppet and compromised the Syriac name for the Assyrian one, by removing the Syriac sources for the Assyrian ones. Wlaak (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shamoun Hanne Haydo had already been listed as Syriac, I was restoring the edit a person made, where he compromised the name Syriac for Assyrian, despite all current sources stated Syriac.

That's just not true, I don’t know how else to say it. If you check the article history [34], you'll see that Haydo's background has always stirred up reverts among users; it’s never really been settled. There are no recent sock edits in the article as far as I can tell, you can't revert somebody for socking if they aren't an active sock. The reliable modern scholarly source I pointed out supports an Assyrian background [35], you can't deny this.

@Asilvering, @Robert McClenon I wonder what others outside this topic think of Wlaak's response above, is it encouraging to you? Because I personally see reoccurring red flags which isn't helped by their recent behavior; apparently (and Robert McClenon seems to have seen this) Wlaak has been taking strange ownership of articles and then lecturing users on their talk pages in a really condescending way. It’s just cringeworthy to read Wlaak's comments in this discussion (link). It's also odd how they lecture about "consensus" during that discussion when they think it aligns with their perspective, yet in the same breath, they have no problem altering long-standing consensus versions of several other articles without having a consensus. Lastly, Wlaak also appeared to canvass a single edit IP to vote in a discussion Wlaak opened (btw the discussion is again about the same subject they're so adamant to push [36]). Doesn’t all this raise some eyebrows? Are we sure we want to give this user that much rope, only for them to likely end up in ANI again? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One is allowed to edit an article, after it having been edited to Syriac, per the majority of sources (and now a academic source), it was later changed by another editor using a pro-Assyrian website (Hujada) as source and one other source, overlooking the majority of sources stating Syriac.

What ownership? I noticed for 30 minutes edits from a IP came in after a edit from a Wiki User, it changed the lead, the Name & Identity etc.

"Canvass", no the IP asked if there is a possibility of changing the redirect, I informed him that there is a open discussion regarding it... what's wrong with that?

All this feels like a coordinated attack on me, few hours after you commented your first comment, another editor with a brand new account came a few hours later and accused me of harassing him via mail... Wlaak (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright you just refuse to accept any wrongdoing whatsoever, at any rate, I don’t plan to have a pointless back and forth with you seeing the rest of bludgeoning. I don’t know any of the users in this discussion btw, and for you to make “coordinated attack” accusations based on no real evidence is disappointing but not surprising, to me at least. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is free from having done wrongs, both parties in this ANI are guilty of wrongdoing. You also accused me of "soliciting votes" from a [37] but failed to include that the IP asked if he could change the redirect, in which I said if you are in favor of it, there is a discussion, is that soliciting votes? [38] Wlaak (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlaak I have a quick question for you, @KhndzorUtogh bringing up the IP address on the opened discussion leaves me wondering something. I’ve noticed that a few times now, you seem to attract a number of IP addresses that randomly show up out of nowhere to support or encourage your stance on disputes, only for them to never be seen again. This has happened quite a few times now:

• Back when you were discussing create a separate Aramean people page in March, this Swedish IP [39] made one comment opposing @Shmayo and was never seen again
• This Dutch IP [40] made two comments, one supporting your argument and another about Shmayo. Like the above, they were never seen again
• This other Dutch IP [41] took part in the discussion, supporting your arguments and agreeing with you - they were never seen on any other part of Wikipedia
• Yet another Dutch IP [42] left a message on your talk page with suggestions on your current Draft:Aramean people
• On Güngören, Midyat, once again another Dutch IP [43] shows up out of nowhere agreeing with you and asking if they can change the redirect, which you've opened a discussion for

It's not that this happens frequently, but it's certainly been noticeable that I wanted to bring it up. What make's matters more suspicious is that no IPs have appeared to oppose the Aramean arguments you make in support of Assyrian or other identities. Can you explain the sudden emergence of these IP addresses? Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have zero idea. However, the latest one from Güngören, Midyat had already been active in the talk page as of last year, I replied to him saying I was agreeing with him. He then became active again.

About the IP that left a suggestion on my talk page, I tried replying to him and get him to help out with the Draft:Aramean people he was giving feedback about, but he has not responded.

As of the other instances, I am not sure. I know that this topic has been very sensitive and suppressive of all Arameans, they might have been popping up when seeing new discussions, other than that, I really do not have an answer. They seem to only have been commenting on the Aramean article.

It is words against words, I am not sure if you believe me, you are free to file a sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation on me, it was done before and I was unrelated to the accounts. Wlaak (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been watching this unfold and it is extremely disappointing. @Wlaak and @Miaphysis have started yet another long winded debate,and it has not being going anywhere. @asilvering, Wlaak has not done s they said and moved on. I asked for a simple explanation of the changes they wanted to make and have given me roughly 3,500 words. Both Wlaak and Miaphysis have been bludgeoning and in my opinon edit warring, to get their points aross. I will file an RfC for the naming dispute (@Robert McClenon would you willing to help?). To be clear, I have no stake in this other wanting to get the article to GA. I don't want anyone to be in trouble but here we are. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I too am disappointed, and have again proposed a topic ban. You're welcome to comment below. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry to have disappointed you, but in this case, I was engaging in the talk page rather than edit-warring, the only edits I did was restoring the drastic, huge and controversial edits that lacked consensus, I also pushed a edit where I implemented the agreements me and the other party had in the talk page. I understand the Wikipedia:BLUDGEON, I should have left the discussion and initiated a RfC after realizing we were just going in circles.

  Would a logged warning not be more fitting? Wlaak (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wlaak, No it would not. @Asilvering, gave you a warning before and now. You have chosen not to heed it. While this may be unfortunate, you should have seen it coming from 100 kms away after the last ANI thread. As the wording of the proposed TBAN says, you can appeal it in 6 months; take the restriction with dignity and edit other areas, show the community that you can be trusted to edit. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't even know what to say anymore. I am failing to see how a talk page discussion can lead to a TBAN. I was reverting undiscussed moves yesterday, and doing so got me tbanned. Wikipedia should be inclusive, not exclusive. The undermining of other identities is worrying, really. Fourteen years and counting, one editor has managed to hinder the development of certain categories on Wikipedia. All of this feels like constant, one-sided, and deliberate attempts to have me gone. Wlaak (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wlaak, no one wants you gone, certainly not me or the other editors who have tried to help you. In 6 months time you can certainly start to help support other identities, but right now you have been going about it the wrong way. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 23:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Further to what @CF-501 Falcon just said, @Wlaak, it's not within my power as an individual administrator to give you a tban from this topic, but it is within my power to block you outright for disruptive editing. I'm confident that, if I had done so, no other administrator would have overturned it, at least not for some time. So please understand that when I say I don't want you gone, that isn't a hollow statement. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  certainly doesn't feel that way. there was even a brand new account accusing me of harassing them via mail. With only Assyrian WikiPedians participating in the Syriac Orthodox Church article, it hurts me to say, but I think it is inevitable that it will fall to their bias. i did my best to hinder any POV, and got banned for it.

  please maintain it and keep it neutral. i have linked all (secondary) sources on the talk page, and the current version includes the references regarding the Church’s identity, so that when there are proposals or changes made to the page, you will have the ones i left. Wlaak (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You aren't banned yet. But if you are, you will be able to appeal the ban and return to normal editing eventually, and I hope that you do. Again, you'll find it much, much easier to convince other editors that there are problems with neutral pov on these articles once you have more experience with editing. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wlaak, there's no such thing as a logged warning, since this isn't a CTOP. Sorry. I'd have handed one out ages ago if I could have. Instead I warned you several times that you should edit in some other topics until you had more wikipedia experience. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed what was going on while skimming through the SOC page and checking out the talk page earlier today. I agree with @Asilvering that Wlaak's messages could be shorter, it really felt tiring to read a lot of this in one sitting because it seemed to lead nowhere. I don't want to dogpile on Wlaak because this shouldn't turn into intimidation, but I agree that a lot of these edits made by Wlaak have largely been running against the consensus, disregarding WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS - I second @Shmayo as well. An RfC should be filed. Ghebreigzabhier | ገብረግዛብሄር 22:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socks gonna sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have edited the article under a previous account I lost the password for. This user was extremely disruptive and emailed me with harassing words. how do I report this? TheLiberalWikiEditor (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Are you serious? What article are you speaking of and what name was your account under? I just recently got a wiki-mail and I have not contacted anyone via that email apart from the Arbitration Committee. Can you share what I allegedly said? I am more than happy to prove that I have not emailed you anything, these are extreme accusations! Your account is brand new, literally created today and throwing these accusations. Wlaak (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Wlaak, my advice is to respond no further about this alleged harassment, and let arbcom deal with that if necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] okay, thank you Wlaak (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] @TheLiberalWikiEditor, you need to email User:Arbitration Committee with this kind of thing. Please do not post about it here. Obviously, Wlaak will be completely unable to respond to these allegations on this board; please don't put them into that position. -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask participants in and watchers of this topic area more broadly to provide what they think are the <5 most single contentious articles in this topic area? I don't mean "ones currently being disrupted" or "ones currently involving Wlaak". I am quite sure that what Wlaak wrote above, these "disputes" have always been a problem when it comes to this topic is true, and, given that, it's strange that there hasn't been an arbcom case or discussion about community sanctions in the topic. It would be helpful to see the "most contentious" or "most disrupted" articles as context. Not most important/critical - I'm looking for the ones that make the clearest case that this topic area is problematic. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:asilvering, for asking the editors to identify the specific topics of contention.

If I understand correctly, User:Shmayo has been given bad advice that is wasting their time and the time of the community. They appear to be saying that they were considering DRN or RFC because they have a combination content and conduct dispute, and were advised to try WP:ANI instead. When a case is filed here at ANI without previous attempts to address the content dispute, it often ends up with an exchange of unpleasant posts and no conclusion, and that is what has happened so far, four days after filing, because RFC has not been attempted. I already said that User:Wlaak is pushing a point of view. It appears that User:Shmayo is also pushing a point of view. I don't think that it is time to topic-ban both editors. I think that it is time to try RFC. Maybe Shmayo doesn't know that the issues are to put in an RFC. If so, maybe they should try DRN. If there is a deadlock over a content dispute, DRN will often ask questions designed to formulate a neutrally worded RFC. I think that Shmayo was almost right in trying either DRN or RFC until they were advised to try ANI instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if this matter were to go to ArbCom, ArbCom would, among other things, define a contentious topic area, maybe The Levant, broadly construed. So maybe the community should impose a community contentious topic area to avoid an ArbCom case. So I agree that the editors should follow the advice of User:asilvering in trying to define what the area of dispute is. Either that, or RFC, or DRN to formulate the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Levant" is what I'd use if I had to tban or conditional unblock someone, to be sure I'd gotten the whole range of issues, but I think the community could probably come up with something more restricted, like Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac topics, which is an absurd mouthful but probably covers everything. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is about me receiving a topic ban or not and if I am writing my own sentence, I hope not. But the topic would be most fitting in the Near East, as this includes basically everything regarding this topic. The Levant is very limited, most places of origin amongst all groups is far from the Levant. I am not too educated about this matter (disputes, TBANS etc.) and if "Near East" is a valid one, but that is what I would identify it as. Wlaak (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that I would support a topic-ban. I implied that I would support a contentious topic status. I already opposed a topic-ban once before. A topic-ban is necessary if efforts to resole the content dispute fail. There have not been adequate efforts to resolve the content dispute. I will support a contentious topic declaration as a way of demanding that the parties try to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, the article "Arameans" was semi-protected during 2023 due to persistent disruptive editing. It usually attracted a high number of IPs. Other than that, I don't think there is any article that stands out in particular. Articles about places and persons (and organizations/institutions, like in this case) are all subject to the dispute. Shmayo (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, having viewed the ANI from the sidelines I wanted to give an answer. I think "The Levant" as a topic of contention is too broad and would have to factor into account other unrelated topics involving certain groups, countries, people, etc. The topic I would define as contentious would fall under the banner "Assyrian naming dispute", since it is prominently disputes surrounding Assyrian, Chaldean, and Aramean identities.

As Shmayo said above, articles about anything that ties back to Assyrians are all subject to dispute. But I think there are a few articles that stand out, which I've listed below:

• Arameans
• Shamoun Hanne Haydo
• Defense of Azakh/Defence of Iwardo
• Turoyo language
• Basically any Assyrian village in Mardin/Tur Abdin
• Tel Keppe

Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. Up at WP:VPR#Community sanctions for "Assyrian" topics now. -- asilvering (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a content dispute involving Syriac Orthodox Church and Assyrian people and Arameans. I am saying that there appears to be a content dispute, because it seems to be impossible to get the parties to state exactly what the content dispute is, because they want to resolve the conduct dispute first. Rather than trying to resolve the messy combination of content dispute and conduct dispute, can the community assert community general sanctions over the topics of Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian people, and Arameans, and then let uninvolved administrators impose sanctions?

Multiple parties seem to want to deal with conduct first rather than resolving the content dispute, so that normal content dispute resolution will not work until sanctions are imposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A long exchange that seemed to have degenerated into name-calling was just closed off at Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Church#Name_&_Identity and, in my opinion, illustrates that battleground editing is interfering with dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to have the content dispute resolved and have been attempting to do that. From what I understand the actual dispute boils down to is the Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian or Aramean? I think that this requires sanctions, as people are getting very heated over it. I don't think the entire article is contentious, rather that "Assyrian people and Arameans" may need to be a CTOP (community or arbcom). Thank you for the help, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that indeed it's not just the church where these things are being disputed, but pretty much everything related to these ethnic groups in the region. I think "Syriac" as a name has also appeared in these circumstances, and maybe a few others; regardless, I think the names of ethnic groups in the region should probably be labeled as a contentious topic in some form.

I also believe that users have made comments suggesting offsite coordination; if any of them have evidence to that effect, then I think it may have to fall under the remit of ArbCom, so that such evidence can be analyzed. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

_{+1. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}[reply]

@Robert McClenon, that's exactly what my post in the section above is all about - putting together the evidence to be able to make a request for GS at AN. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read through the dispute presented in the ANI report here, but adding an anecdotal +1 that GS/CTOPs for Syriac, Aramean and Assyrian identity and national politics is warranted based on the amount of disruption and acrimony we see in the topic area. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, before I make that suggestion to AN, do you see any difference between the topic as you've described and "Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects", as I worded it in the tban proposal below? -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No asilvering I think your framing is appropriate and likely safer in its inclusion of Chaldean, although (again anecdotally) I feel like most of the disruption we see is specifically over Aramean vs Assyrian _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering If it's of any assistance, I'm currently working on Draft:Assyrian identity crisis, which aims to discuss why this dispute is so contentious. As of now I plan on converting it to my sandbox so that I can publish it directly once it's finished; it's not yet complete and once it is, I want to get it peer reviewed and to ping the active editors in this topic area to hear their thoughts and concerns. For now, though, I think that it would help to consider that perspective in order to determine the extent to which this should have sanctions. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Surayeproject3, this is certainly helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this in an earlier thread here at ANI, and it wasn't taken up. Since the disruption has continued, I'm opening it up for discussion again. I don't want to give Wlaak an indefinite block. I do, however, think that they need to avoid this obviously contentious topic until they are more experienced with collaboration on Wikipedia. I've made that suggestion to Wlaak several times to no effect. Accordingly, I am again proposing an indefinite topic ban from Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects, broadly construed. This can be appealed to WP:AN in six months. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I was trying to reach consensus on the Syriac Orthodox Church, drastic and controversial edits were taking place before a consensus. Wlaak (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - While I've stated that Wlaak has shown positive signs since previous disputes in March and April, the arguments being made on the article for the Syriac Orthodox Church and the other things mentioned above (namely the WikiProject Assyria template and Shamoun Hanne Haydo) clearly indicate a continued Aramean-POV. At the point where it is still being disruptive and negatively influencing the development of the encyclopedia, it's definitely grounds to reconsider the topic ban. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. At the moment, I believe Wlaak is simply not competent enough to edit in this contentious topic area. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have tried to work with and meditate with Wlaak. However, @Miaphysis should be given a formal warning for edit warring. This was not the best outcome possible but it is necessary. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Comment - After reading what @Robert McClenon wrote, I would only support if this was for both sides. While @Wlaak may certainly benifit from a TBAN , so would @Surayeproject3 . While a closer would certainly look at who supported and opposed, quite a few of the supports are involved editors from the other side of the argument. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CF-501 Falcon, look at how you originally say it's another editor who should have a warning for edit-warring, then following RMcC point out a different one as needing sanction. The common denominator here is Wlaak. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, I do not disagree with your proposal. I just believe that all the involved editors should be given a warning. I was in the process of asking RMcC if he would be willing to propose a TBAN for both of the above editors and after warn Miaphysis and Shmayo. To make it clear I do support the TBAN of Wlaak. Sorry for the confusion, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 16:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CF-501 Falcon Why exactly are you proposing that I receive a topic ban? I have just seen your post on @Robert McClenon's talk page and am confused as to why you are suggesting that. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Surayeproject3, I was under the impression that you were doing the same thing as them albeit maybe to a more acceptable degree. Your userpage comes of as POV pushing; which I realize may not be your intent. This was just a suggestion, you have shown that you can edit the Syriac Orthodox Church article productively. Maybe a TBAN is a little bit too strong; a warning would suffice. Considering @Asilvering's comment above, I agree. I would be agreeable to a warning to you and the other three to not edit war (not necessarily you) and POV push. It would be better to wait and see if more problems arise without the common denominator; in which case stronger actions could be taken. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Surayeproject3 - Restoring the previous ANI thread on this topic when the community was ready to let it hibernate is only one example of your disruptive editing. I haven't finished reviewing the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have made my case as to why Wlaak is trying to give a WP:UNDUE impression of the Aramean identity in the Syriac Church giving a certain impression while omitting the details and marginalizing others. Miaphysis (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do think that, deserved or undeserved, it's understandable that the user in question feels a bit piled on, and there should definitely be some way to ensure they aren't completely shut out if there is an RFC or the like (albeit possibly with a word limit to avoid overwhelming the discussion) Sesquilinear (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The user @Wlaak should still be able to work, to some extent, on certain categories, such as his draft, to which I’ve also contributed. It would be a shame for him to lose access to everything he wish to do. Historynerd361 (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a great shame. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sesquilinear and @Historynerd361, are you suggesting that the restriction be only for namespace? CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That way he can at least continue to work on his draft. Historynerd361 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He can continue to work on his draft in a text file on his local machine. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how does a draft hurt you? do you really want me to work on a text file? with no WikiPedia tools such as referencing? linkage to other articles? there will be no noise from me either way, the draft won't affect you. Wlaak (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the area seems problematic for you. You can always use something like Zotero for your references. Let the draft be for 6 months and work on something else. Either way, just let the proposal run its pace; otherwise it may just make it worse for you. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i really have nothing more to say Wlaak (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting something more narrowly tailored to an RFC or ArbCom case, honestly. Sesquilinear (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I don't think I have ever seen anybody get a TBAN for one namespace only (I haven't been here for too long). CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are sometimes banned from particular namespaces, but I don't think I've ever seen a topic ban about a particular subject formulated as only a mainspace ban. If the topic is problematic it's problematic, regardless of location. -- asilvering (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

_{Thank you! That makes sense. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}[reply]

@Sesquilinear, if there's an arbcom case, arbcom would probably grant an exemption from the tban for the purposes of participating in it. If there's a major RfC on this topic while Wlaak is tbanned, I would happily support his ability to make a single !vote on the topic as a limited exemption to the tban. Broader participation wouldn't work out (in my view), since we'd end up with the same issues that lead to this discussion in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- please, allow me to at least work on my drafts. i will not be of disturbance to any of you anymore. thanks to the two of you guys writing comments. Wlaak (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this time, as a one-sided solution to a problem with at least two "sides". Shmayo, the Original Poster of this thread, and Surayeproject3 have both been gaming WP:ANI. I am concerned that if we topic-ban one editor, we, the community, may think that we have solved the problem for now, and may leave the problem alone instead of trying to address a problem that has been simmering for at least five years. The archives of Talk:Arameans show that a history of sockpuppetry and personal attacks, and an ongoing controversy over whether there should be a separate article on the modern Aramean people. Topic-banning one editor is not an answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon, who is this "we, the community", you're talking about? Everyone who has taken part in this thread has said the area is contentious. Which of us do you think are going to forget about it? -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I mean that the community has two parts to its institutional memory: its active institutional memory, which consists of the content of its noticeboards, and its long-term institutional memory, which includes the archives of its noticeboards. Yes, I do mean that when the topic-ban is imposed, follow-up action will be a lower priority, and then this thread will be auto-archived, and then the community will remember it again the next time that an editor reports an issue here or on another noticeboard. We, the community, all take conflicts in Wikipedia seriously, but the level of attention that we give to a particular issue varies, because many of us would rather be expanding Class C articles or reviewing drafts or gnoming categories rather than engaging in drama. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a topic-ban of both Wlaak and Surayeproject3, for mirror-image histories of POV pushing and stonewalling. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There's too much risk compared to benefit for the health of this Wikipedia. It's not indefinite, it's not excessive - and many things can change in a few months for better or for worse. Ghebreigzabhier | ገብረግዛብሄር 02:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As some have suggested, the bulk of his disruptive editing is on this page in specific - so I too don't see the harm of letting him work on his drafts. Ghebreigzabhier | ገብረግዛብሄር 02:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The draft to which Wlaak refers has been submitted for AFC review, and is at Draft:Aramean people. I have marked it as under review, and expect to complete my review in about 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon hi, i just pushed a edit on the draft since its still before i get blocked, and just realized that it has been sent for review. the draft was not finished, i have not put enough sources in it, and some parts were not done. i also did not leave a comment with the draft, it was supposed to say that if it passed, the current Arameans article to be moved to History of the Arameans Wlaak (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Wlaak - Your draft has been submitted for review, and I am reviewing it. It is true that some parts of it are not done. It can be reviewed in its current state. You say that you did not put enough sources in it, but that statement is silly. It has 230 sources in it, which is more than are often seen in Good Article Nominations. Your draft has been submitted for review, and is being reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay thank you, fingers crossed Wlaak (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On the one hand, I expect that the review will take about another 24 hours. On the other hand, I expect that I will accept the draft, with the knowledge that it will be controversial, and that it may be nominated for deletion, but a deletion discussion should be the consensus process that is needed to resolve the content issue that is being exacerbated by conduct. I will not be trying to guess whether there is a greater than 50% of surviving a deletion discussion, but I am making the judgment that either a deletion discussion or the absence of a deletion discussion will have a positive effect on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have accepted the draft, which is consistent with previous discussion, and with my objective of facilitating resolution of the content dispute via a consensus process. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC) draft acc[reply]

  thank you, unfortunately, it has already been filed for AfD by the other party of this discussion Wlaak (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have initiated a deletion discussion. Shmayo (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Perhaps the AFD can be a consensus process to try to resolve this long-simmering content dispute that is being complicated by conduct violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or quickly turn into a mess. Shmayo (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a risk. If the AFD turns into a mess due to battleground editing, it should be even more obvious that either the community or the ArbCom should declare the topic to be contentious, and the offending parties should be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denying sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support* , but I think the ban should be indefinite. WikiPatrollingOfficer (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] do you guys see what i mean? brand new account, banned for sockpuppet and tried getting me blocked for good... Wlaak (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes, @Wlaak, I see it. That kind of thing is exactly why I've suggested so many times that you leave this topic area for now and edit something else while you build up experience and a reputation for making good edits. As an established editor, you will have very little to fear from this kind of behaviour. As a new editor only working within a contentious subject area, you are extremely vulnerable to various kinds of abuse and tag-teaming bullshit. -- asilvering (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Disruptive editing, including edit warring since this was filed. I also agree with KhndzorUtogh. Shmayo (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring goes both ways. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - TBAN should be two way. Surayeproject3’s edits are just as disruptive. Upon reviewing Surayeproject3s edits, I've came across these disruptive edits, such a 4 year disambiguation with no edits done until Surayeproject3 erased the Arameans for Assyrians, despite the disambiguation being about "Aramaic people" See this

Surayeproject also removed the Syriac name from this party, switching it to Assyrian, saying it is a Assyrian party even when the party's name is Syriac.

See: this thisthis

this thisthis this this

Also see talk page discussion here --Historynerd361 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread for 4 days. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC) Joseph77237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[reply]

This editor has some 600 edits, more than 400 of them to Preterintention, their creation. Their edits to the de-wiki version of this article have all been reverted, and they are indefinitely blocked from it-wiki. Most of their talk page edits (eg at User talk:Joseph77237, which is worth a read) have been to describe other editors as being vandals (see also Special:Diff/1245797340, in which the supposed vandal is yours truly), and to complain when other editors very patiently attempted to explain various matters of policy, why they reverted, etc.

He is incapable of collaborating (This way of working is not my style, Special:Diff/1244691906), and has repeatedly and over time expressed his opposition to WP:5P3 and the foundational idea of "anyone can edit". Examples: ok. But I don't agree: the 5 pillars of Wikipedia should be interpreted through the criteria of official hermeneutics: "literal", "systematic", "teleological", "logical", "rational" etc. (September), I don't find it rational that Wikipedia's specialist entries are written without having the relevant academic qualifications and expertise (January), a Wikipedia article written by someone who is not a lawyer is insane (today). These are all from Talk:Preterintention.

He has several times declared he is done editing Wikipedia. I think we should help him make good on this promise, by means of an indefinite block. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef CBAN. Preterintention has been brought to WP:LAW several times now. See Special:PermanentLink/1289184872#Preterintention. I was unaware of the conduct issues. Based on the evidence, Joseph seems to be a cross-project SPA focused on presenting his theory of preterintention. His editing is not compatible with a collaborative project. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Cross-project SPA" is an accurate description. Joseph, a native Italian speaker, has contributed exclusively to articles about this topic (or directly related topics) in at least eight languages, listed & linked here at his Talk page, some of which are Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Somali. One has to presume AI is being used in at least some of them (asked here, but not answered). He also has stated that he will not contribute to any other topic (diff-1) and that legal topics are or should be restricted to attorney editors (diff-2, diff-3). Mathglot (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motion Seconded

This guy has said so himself, he is incapable of following basic Wikipedia guidelines. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

seems like a WP:CIR situation as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be interested in hearing what he has to say before we rush him to the exits. With that, yeah, Citizendium has already been tried, and it was an abject failure. Perhaps Joseph77237 would like to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica thinks his "expertise" is worth anything? Ravenswing 02:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot offered to mentor him to avoid this very situation, and this was the response: Special:Diff/1288933534. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he has remained extremely consistent in his views over the past year, I don't really expect to hear anything from him that he hasn't already said. -- asilvering (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support CBAN per WP:CNH and WP:CIR. Wikipedia isn't a place for civil POV pushing. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 03:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Asilvering: The links you put to September and January don't go to the quotes they're referencing - may want to check that? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  sigh. Thought I already had fixed them. I will never remember that regular diffs work differently from the ones with "oldid" in them and you can't copy diff #s out of the URL bar half the time. -- asilvering (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took asilvering's advice and wandered over to read said talk page and noticed Joseph77237 had made a comment when logged out and then repeated it logged in. That IP, 95.75.78.144, has made significant contributions in the user's topic areas of interest - way beyond the occasional 'Oops, forgot to log' - FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which contributions you mean, but the two anons I am aware of that belong to him are 88.58.91.18 (talk · contribs) and 95.75.78.144 (talk · contribs) but I believe the IP contributions I saw were before his first edits under his registered account. There are two other IPs with similar patterns, but they are from Stockholm and Dusseldorf so may not be him. I doubt we will get to the point where we need to dive deeper on this, but ping me if we do. Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef CBAN Narrow self-interest, uninterested in working collaboratively, denial of basic Wikipedia principles, lack of competence in editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a currently banned-by-ArbCom user's talk page where multiple editors left messages urging her return. As an individual who suffered from this banned editor's behaviour, I left a note stating my reasons opposing her return and was swiftly reverted by Fortuna imperatrix mundi because my comment was not in support. Fortuna also wrote in edit summary that ...You wanna do that, it's welcome at the Dramah Boards. While restoring my comment, I told Fortuna that they can't only allow one-sided "support" comments and remove any that oppose their views. Fortuna doubled down by reverting again and in the edit summary stated ...yes, I make that call. I believe Fortuna's behaviour met the definition of user talk page ownership and also violated talk page guidelines on removing other user's comments. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this is an example of a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor foolishly says "take it to the dramah boards" while reverting that's basically them agreeing that there's a behavioral problem somewhere, so escalating to ANI seems reasonable in such a case. SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, SnowFire, 'twas not foolishness. It was, rather, recognition of the futility of engaging in further discussion with the OP at that time and to prevent an, as I said, unseemly edit-war on a blocked-user's talk page. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was more referring to principle #1 at Wikipedia:ANI_advice#Don't, i.e. that it's (usually) foolish to offer to go to ANI at all. But obviously it's where some disputes belong and need to be taken lest they fester, just cutting remarks aren't great for nuance, and the general principle stands, even or especially when the editor offering to go to ANI is 'right'. Sorry if that came off wrong! SnowFire (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SnowFire, and no worries; I just wanted to clarify that it wasn't a "I double-dog-dare-you" kind of challenge  :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MiasmaEternal They did urge me to file at ANI. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user talk page isn't a discussion forum; it's a venue for communicating with the editor. If I were to go over to your talk page -- however justified I thought I was in doing so -- and posted "Stay away and don't ever come back," I would be troutslapped so hard I'd be seeing flounder in my sleep. That's in essence what you did. User talk pages are not the proper venue for opposing appeals of ArbCom actions. Ravenswing 02:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem helpful to put critical comments on a former editor's talk page. And formatting that page so that it seems to solicit bolded iVotes also seems less than ideal. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC) (non-objective non-admin)[reply]

A) Negative messages aren't a good idea and skirt WP:GRAVEDANCING rules. But B) "Positive" messages are also not a good idea, at least the ones that pretend that a banned user was purely innocent. It would be wonderful if all sanctioned editors could come back with permissions restored, but this requires them acknowledging they may have done something wrong. Telling such editors that actually everything was fine and they can come back no problem is going to reduce the likelihood of a successful appeal, not increase it, by suggesting "hey it was all haters and I don't need to change at all" is a viable appeal. (But if people want to give bad advice, I guess they can... just don't be surprised at the result.) SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a circling the wagons sort of thing where a long-term editor is defended by a large group of people, no matter the terrible things they do. That entire talk page should be blanked. The past two years of the archive with similar material should be blanked, imo. Silverseren^C 03:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The page curation that's happening is troubling, it seems that positive messages are kept front and center while routine notices are deleted immediately even though BHG had auto archiving set up. At one point folks were even being admonished for leaving routine AfD notices. I didn't think it was worth the drama to pursue it when it happened to me, but selectively deleting negative comments is a bridge too far.

Frankly if BHG does return so editing, it would be a huge pain in the butt for them to dig up all of those notices from the history instead of having them in an archive. At the very least we should ask that editors refrain from tampering with the page. –dlthewave ☎ 05:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with page blanking or even a section of messages from her supporters. The comment removal was the one that broke the camel's back. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think archiving it is for the best. She was blocked nearly two years ago; it having turned into a bulleted support/oppose list makes me think "not the place". SWinxy (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telling Ohana to take to the drama board was a recognition that they had an issue. They had already reverted once, and as unseemly as posting criticism to someone's page who cannot defend themselves is, edit warring over it would have been worse (not that it got that far of course). So better discuss here than there. The bottom line is that, whether editors should be expressing such support on a user page or not, there's nothing codified against it (and can you imagine even trying to get consensus for a prohibition like that?). Editors support each other via talk page messages; that's what they do. But it's not WP:AN/U. If BHG ever decides to return, that will involve an appeal to ArbCom, and that will be the chance for everybody to express their bolded-or-otherwise opinions, in a forum designed for it and specifically one where all parties can comment. I also think that BHG is experienced enough that if she does ever do so it will not be because a handful of editors said it was OK. I respect that Ohana had a bad experience with her. I also think that when you have a bad experience with someone, it's best to ignore them. But I don't think it justifies... it's been called ~gravedancing, I compared it to poking the bear (from the safety of the other side of the bars!). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:OhanaUnited behaved with incredibly poor taste by attacking BHG in a venue where she cannot reply. I told him so on his user talk page, he replied that he's "entitled to [express] my opinion on that page just like any other user". Well, maybe, but it seems to me to be him applying "the letter not the spirit", rather like his failure to notify me of this ANI thread even though I am obviously somewhat involved. Yes, he's entitle to attack someone who cannot defend herself, but it I think to do so shews bad taste, bad judgement (he must have known it would create drama, perhaps that's why he did it), and an unpleasant attitude to his fellow humans. DuncanHill (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just point out that the majority of those comments were made in 2024; BHG has been eligible to appeal her ban since August 2024. Given that she has never edited since her ban (in August 2023) I'd suggest that writing comments there now is somewhat pointless anyway, but posting "no, stay away, we don't want you" is very poor etiquette, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making unsolicited negative comments about a banned user where they can't defend themselves is poor form. Much as I empathise with the compulsion to respond to comments urging a return by pointing out the reason for the ban, it's probably better to let things like block logs or arbitration cases or whatever other explanations are given for a ban speak for themselves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is in poor taste. Gravedancing is not cool. Neither is downplaying/ignoring the behavior that led to the ban. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given all of this I just have to wonder if locking the talk page in question might not be the best solution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ This should have been done a long time ago. -- GreenC 21:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly should be standard practice for anyone who has talk page access revoked, since its not like they can use it for an unblock request anyways. Silverseren^C 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• you are all children grow up. this behavior is below you. I have yet to see anyone invoke a policy based reason to commandeer BHGs TP. And fwiw im against this trend of manually killing deletion and other such templates on banned users' pages. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Trout for Ohana. GraveDancing and edit warring is not the behaviour I expect from an administrator. Even if they think they're right, being right isn't enough. Nobody (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the archiving has resolved everything that's necessary, and has achieved the correct result. As Floquenbeam has pointed out, most of the support messages were left ~contemporaneously―only three have been left this year—so few editors now will be inconvenienced, while the gravedancing (the bolded oppose that started this) has been removed and will not be reinstated. I also note for the record that only the said gravedancing and the subsequent edit war (ironically by which time I was AFK) have come in for substantive critical comment. I pass no comment on the value or otherwise of advocating BHG's return on her own talk, as, of course, I never did so myself or indeed expressed such a view publicly ("bolded" or otherwise). But I do thank everyone involved for focussing on the pertinent issues in resolving this business. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Wait, I said what? When? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah! I think you meant Black Kite. Mixing us up is a compliment to me, and an insult to BK... Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaBetaGamma One small issue, it looks like the page was only protected for a week to address the current edit warring. Since there's no opposition I wonder if it makes sense for an admin to let your NAC stand and convert it to indefinite full protection? Pinging Callanecc who added the protection. –dlthewave ☎ 14:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who was/is sad about BHG going, I have two thoughts - firstly that OhanaUnited's comment was inappropriate, but also that the policing of BHG's talk page (and yes, that is what it is, even to the extent where automated messages are being reverted to keep it 'pure' or whatever) is wholly inappropriate and needs to stop ASAP. GiantSnowman 18:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This entire thread is pretty much a "(Personal attack removed)" <- intentional template sent from the start to show my opinion (edit warring, on a arb-blocked user's talk page?), you can revert my NAC or whatever but I'm not going any further inside. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 23:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll go ahead and up the protection to indefinite. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for my lack of Wikipedia knowledge, but just reading through this, if the community wants her unbanned, can't you all just make an appeal to Arbcom? Given the stress involved with going to a place like that, I could understand why Brown Haired Girl wouldn't want to initiate an appeal herself. Especially since it seems like the Wikipedia community needs her more than she needs Wikipedia. It seems to me that the reasons for her block are suitable for public discussion. So why doesn't someone go to WP:ARCA and create a request so that she can be unblocked? 128.193.8.41 (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Since I think you were the one who made the original You Can Come Back message (sorry if I did that wrong). Anyways, as someone who reads Wikipedia drama noticeboards for fun from time to time, it would warm my heart quite a lot to see a positive resolution to something for once. 128.193.8.41 (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an unregistered user just randomly happened across ANI "just asking questions" and to tell us how much we need BHG. Sure. Recommend closing this thread. 128.193, if you're a troll seeking to start a "BHG: Good or bad?" flame war then nice try, but on the 1% chance you are an actual Wikipedia newbie who just happened to stumble across ANI, go read all the text from the ArbCom cases in the archives. SnowFire (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different person and just wanting to second IP's whole "lurking noticeboards" and "wanting a positive resolution" thing as well.2001:EE0:1AB0:AFF6:B34F:A443:433B:4140 (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gravedancing is not cool. Neither is leaving fawning tributes for an arbcom-banned user telling her she did nothing wrong. I’ve seen people come back from bans, but feeding the delusions that got them banned is unhelpful and disrespectful to all the people they hurt in the process. Maybe we should just lock all talk pages for banned users who have shown no interest in reforming and returning. Dronebogus (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support this is a reasonable proposal 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Made an idea lab proposal here Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I propose everyone who voted “support” (or “oppose”, for that matter, even though I know nobody did) on the fake “should BHG be allowed back” poll be trouted. Trouting is a stupid concept I don’t ordinarily use but a bunch of users who I normally respect straw polling to un-ban a banned user is also a stupid concept deserving of an equally stupid admonishment. Dronebogus (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would hope as Wikipedians we could hold two things to be true at the same time. Lots of people are going to be sad at losing BHG from the community and want her back and lots of people are going to believe it's good that she has been banned given her behavior. I personally hold a little of both for myself since I personally am sad to have lost the good she offered for many many years, but despite that ultimately voted to support her ban. Even for the people who aren't as divided as I am about it I would hope there could be respect and understanding of the people who feel differently. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a significant difference between feeling sad about someone you considered a friend and/or whose good work you respected and expressing that feeling in a way that ignores, downplays (or in a minority of cases borderline gaslights) the feelings of those whose experience of that editor was different to your own. Gravedancing, vilifying and glorifying a banned editor are all equally inappropriate and we should respond to them in the same way, regardless of which you personally feel is the more appropriate in any given situation. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree with anything you've written. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Starting what’s basically a #freeBHG/#BHGdidnothingwrong campaign is not expressing earnest sadness and disappointment at losing a good contributor because they couldn’t behave appropriately. I think nearly everyone who had even a passing acquaintance with BHG is in the latter category, but nobody has any good reason to be in the former category, and it’s especially disappointing that so many good users seem to not only be in it but are proud of that fact. Dronebogus (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have serious concerns about the conduct of User:TurboSuperA+ based on a recent dispute, which I will elaborate on below.

On 20 April, TurboSuperA+ started an RFC on Talk:Azov Brigade, and cross-posted it to WT:UKRAINE and WP:NPOV/N. I was notified through the former, which is on my watchlist as I have edited it before; I voted no and provided my reasoning, as one does in an RFC (TurboSuperA+ voted yes as the RFC starter).

Today, while the RFC was still ongoing, TurboSuperA+ suddenly added Template:Canvassed behind my and another no-voter's comments (User:Sonnyvalentino), suggesting that we had come to the RFC because of canvassing. This is a baseless and false accusation: nobody ever contacted me about the RFC on- or off-wiki, and Sonnyvalentino also denied having been canvassed.

I made a subsection calling this out and asking for the evidence - as you can see, TurboSuperA+ claimed repeatedly to have secret evidence of off-wiki collusion that they've submitted to ArbCom but apparently can't present in public (whatever this is, I cannot possibly be involved in it - I have never received any off-wiki communications from other editors in all my time on Wikipedia), and also engaged in childish trolling behaviour. This seems to be a textbook case of WP:ASPERSIONS#Off-wiki evidence. When I pressed the matter, TurboSuperA+ finally removed the templates with an uncivil edit summary, and demanded that I "stop pinging them" (so, creating a problem by making accusations against other editors, and then demanding that those editors stop responding).

I also raised this issue on TurboSuperA+'s talk page, denying the accusation, asking to see the evidence, and pointing out that it was not constructive to put accusatory templates without evidence on editors who disagreed with them in an ongoing RFC. TurboSuperA+'s response reversed the burden of proof by questioning why Sonnyvalentino would even respond to the RFC ("What list? Where? Why that RFC in particular, despite never showing an interest in the topic area before?"), as if users need a "plausible explanation" or TurboSuperA+'s permission to respond to the RFC they themselves started and intentionally publicised on two different boards (also ignoring the fact that Sonnyvalentino has often edited in the Eastern Europe topic area, and revealing that TurboSuperA+ did not bother to do basic due diligence before casting aspersions, because they belatedly realised here that I frequently edit Ukraine-related articles and it's not suspicious for me to respond to a Ukraine-related RFC).

A few days before the accusations of canvassing, I also had an exchange with TurboSuperA+ starting here that I found remarkable for the amount of strawmanning, refusal to get the point, and misrepresentation of both my comments and Wikipedia policy such as WP:ONUS (e.g. "The onus is on those making the claim that there was a break" [between the Azov Brigade and the Azov Movement], when I had repeatedly explained that I was not saying Wikipedia should make that claim in wikivoice, but that Wikipedia should cover the dispute between WP:RSes that make that claim and RSes that claim the opposite (per WP:VOICE: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts").

Frankly, either TurboSuperA+ was intentionally misrepresenting my comments and being disruptive in this exchange, or they genuinely don't understand the difference between writing "some sources claim X [while others claim Y]" and writing in wikivoice "X is true", in which case WP:CIR applies for contentious topics. To be clear, the issue I'm raising here is not with TurboSuperA+'s own stance on this content dispute, but with the way they conducted themselves in this discussion by writing repetitive responses to me misrepresenting and strawmanning my stance.

While I was initially willing to move past the exchange on Talk:Azov Brigade#Discussion, I feel that the false accusations of responding to canvassing crossed a line. Even if TurboSuperA+ truly suspected canvassing - and to be totally charitable, even if they genuinely have off-wiki evidence but simply misidentified the users who had been canvassed - it strikes me as deeply inappropriate to tag the responses of editors who happen to disagree with you with accusatory templates seeking to disqualify their comments, when you cannot provide any evidence that your accusations are true or even credible (rather than, for instance, asking the users how they found the RFC). Not only is this rude and uncivil, it undermines the RFC by seeming like an attempt to distort consensus and silence other users.

Worse, I see that this is not the first time TurboSuperA+ has conducted themselves in this manner. There is an archived ANI discussion from February this year about disputed closures on contentious topics, where multiple users noted their belligerent behaviour and refusal to get the point. There is also an admin warning from January 2025 about WP:AGF and not baselessly accusing other users of conspiratorial behaviour simply because they disagree with TurboSuperA+ - in other words, precisely the pattern of conduct that the canvassing accusations fit into. At that time, User:Bishonen said "Any more baseless nonsense about other users being underhanded or the like, and I will block you." I now raise this here in case that or any other sanction is necessary. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 14:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I swear one of the consequences of ChatGPT seem to be that even the posts that don't appear to be actually chat-bot written (chatGPT rarely makes spelling mistakes) have that overly formal, overwritten ChatGPT style. To summarize this: TurboSuperA+ has claimed that they suspect certain editors (Helpful Cat and Sonnyvalentino if I'm not mistaken) may have been canvassed. When asked about this further TurboSuperA+ said their evidence was off-wiki and had been emailed to arbitrators. Helpful Cat wants them blocked for this. I think how this is addressed may depend on an arbitrator confirming:

1. whether evidence was received.
2. whether this evidence of off-wiki collaboration was non-spurious.

If TurboSuperA+ did, in fact, have reason to believe off-wiki canvassing was going on then it's not casting aspersions to say they suspect certain editors have been canvassed. On the other hand, if this is just more battleground behaviour and not backed up by reasonable evidence then it's probably time for them to take a break from Russia/Ukraine articles. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if they are just muddying the water (again) they need to be stopped. If however, they have a valid concern, a boomerang may be in order. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, ArbCom has responded and there was no credible evidence. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 11:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they do have off-wiki evidence, I don't believe it's appropriate for a user who is clearly involved in a dispute to tag comments opposing them with vague accusations of misconduct within the RFC itself, and then refuse to present any evidence, leaving the accusation up to conveniently discredit editors who disagree with them while the RFC is ongoing while denying them the chance to defend themselves. It might be more appropriate to ask those users about the concerns before baselessly tagging their comments, or raise the concerns separately, or wait for the ArbCom investigation.

It is also concerning that this fits into a pattern of groundlessly accusing others of collusion that admins have warned this user about before.

It is also not just the accusations themselves, but the pattern of incivility and WP:IDHT behaviour. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 15:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not too uncommon, if you have a suspicion of canvassing, to identify those people you think may have been canvassed. I see it regularly at AfD for instance. And it does seem a bit like you're attempting to get an ideological opponent voted off the island so to speak with how you've moved the goalposts in this last line of your comment . I, for one, want to hear from the arbitrators whether there was any reasonable suspicion of canvassing before I'd commit to how we should proceed. I do, broadly, agree with @Slatersteven here that it's likely somebody should face disciplinary action for this latest exchange. I've not really made my mind up about who. I will note that your argument with TurboSuperA+ regarding a tag indicating they suspected you may have been canvassed did rather derail the RfC and it takes two to tango but I would also agree that, for example, this edit from TurboSuperA+ was poorly advised and rather childish. Saying nothing would have been wiser in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did I move the goalposts? I already described the incivility and WP:IDHT behaviour in my original post, which has three subsections.

I think it is TurboSuperA+'s action of tagging me and Sonnyvalentino (without even discussing their concerns in any more civil or reasonable way) that derailed the RFC - it seems unfair to say that I derailed it by defending myself against baseless accusations, which everyone has the right to do.

While it may not be uncommon to identify users you suspect were canvassed, I don't think it is normal or appropriate to do this 1) with zero public evidence, thus not allowing them to respond, 2) to users you are already in a content dispute with, when you clearly benefit from silencing those users, and 3) publicly so that your accusations influence the ongoing RFC, while no one can respond to the accusations. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 15:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had responded. It might be best to stop responding and allow Admins to judge the merits of your case, rather than testing their patience. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's wait for admin input, and hopefully arbitrator input about the existence and quality of the secret evidence (and whether that evidence actually identifies specific canvassed users, as opposed to general evidence of canvassing). Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helpful Cat You get Arbitrator input cases or clarification requests brought before the Committee, don’t expect it here. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for informing me - in that case, I guess we won't find out about the secret evidence as Simonm223 suggested above. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a clarification request at the following link: [48] Please note that I framed the question as best I could to respect that arbitrators are not going to violate WP:OUTING while getting at the gist of my concern regarding this element of the dispute.

I'm not here for treating any editor as the boy who cried wolf as I see below. But I do think that we should treat any invocation of off-wiki evidence with due seriousness and gravity. So if that is being gamed then that's an issue I would take very seriously. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening this. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an update: The arbitration committee has confirmed that an email has been received on this topic. They have advised information beyond that is unlikely to be forthcoming in the short term. I'm disinclined to recommend disciplinary action prior to the completion of Arbitration activity on this one - so maybe warnings to both TurboSuperA+ and Helpful Cat for some battleground behaviour and then close this off as in the Arbitration court for the moment. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I would be inclined to leave this open slightly longer (without necessarily recommending specific disciplinary action for anyone before we get more arbitrator input on the secret evidence), because we haven't heard from TurboSuperA+ themselves, and because a user below has posted documentation of this user's history doing this exact thing (accusations of canvassing when users disagree with them), which may be worth exploring.

FWIW, I disagree that I was engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour - a false accusation of misconduct was made against me, and I responded to it; I was engaged in civil, constructive discussion all over Talk:Azov Brigade until I was personally accused of misconduct - although I admit I could have handled it better (I haven't encountered canvassing accusations before and am not familiar with how they are usually handled or what standard of evidence is required).

I also think there is room for community discussion on how to handle accusations of misconduct where the evidence can't be disclosed. While off-wiki manipulation is real and there are clearly situations where evidence must be kept secret, it also does not seem right to let editors involved in disputes influence ongoing RFCs (or other discussions) by posting accusations against other involved editors, and then refuse to substantiate the accusations so that no one can respond. Perhaps this is an area where consensus is required on standards of behaviour and civility. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 18:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has responded, and the secret evidence was never credible or actionable.

I agree with your remark: "But I do think that we should treat any invocation of off-wiki evidence with due seriousness and gravity. So if that is being gamed then that's an issue I would take very seriously." Thanks again for opening the arbitration clarification request. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 12:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I fucked up. My sincere apologies. Both to you, @Helpful Cat and @Sonnyvalentino. It was not my intention to waste anyone's time. I should not have put a template calling you two out. It was wrong of me to do that. I am sorry to have added more hostility to an already volatile environment. It is definitely something to reflect upon and remember. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I accept your apology. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 12:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for example, this edit from TurboSuperA+ was poorly advised and rather childish.

I agree, and posting it was a mistake. It was a response to being incessantly pinged, even after I said I submitted the evidence to ArbCom (which should have been the end of that exchange, really). In the end of the day, I am only human, with human flaws and failings. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]