• 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: [1] 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]

Didn't know where to put my response, so creating a new section.

• Regarding my previous infractions, yes, I made mistakes. I have received a TBAN from closing discussions, which I have respected and never once tried to WikiLawyer around.
• In January I was "reprimanded" on my talk page by an Admin. I created this account in November, there were some growing pains when I joined Wikipedia, I'm not going to hide that. Just like I don't hide any comments posted on my archive, they are all categorised and easily searchable.

• I honestly thought I was doing it all "by the book". I see other editors use templates liberally, they put sockpuppet templates (even when investigation is ongoing, which I know is wrong). But I don't see this kind of response to their actions.
• The reason I posted the templates was to give Helpful Cat and Sonnyvalentino a heads up that I suspect them of being canvassed. I didn't directly accuse them because I'm not sure. Here I wrote that I could be wrong about it. Here I told Helpful Cat that their explanation how they found the RFC is plausible, and I tell them that if I am wrong that I am happy to retract/strike what I posted. Here I tell them that if I am wrong I will give them an apology.
• The way I see it, my other option was to not let Helpful Cat and Sonnyvalentino know they are suspected of being canvassed, in which case they would not be able to defend themselves.
• My suspicions are made in good faith. I do not appreciate Helpful Cat calling it "secret evidence", alluding to it not existing, when it is against Wikipedia policy to post stuff from off-wiki, because of outing and other concerns. I also see that they went from "baseless accusations" to "whether that evidence actually identifies specific canvassed users". If there is evidence, then that accusation is not "baseless", by definition.

For the reference of all, I'm posting the latest update from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Russo-Ukrainian War AN discussion, which Simonm223 opened to ask ArbCom if TurboSuperA+ really provided credible evidence of canvassing. The response from ArbCom is as follows:

We received a report of off-wiki canvassing that fell below the threshold of evidence that we consider to be actionable. Some editors were named as being possibly canvassed but there was no credible evidence that any specific editors were canvassed.

Since there was never any credible evidence, I request an apology and a retraction of the false and baseless accusations by TurboSuperA+, as well as a commitment not to make public unsubstantiated accusations in the future.

Even if TurboSuperA+ made the accusations in good faith, I find it alarming that they did so based on "evidence" that never credibly implicated any specific editors, which appears to call their judgment into question.

I believe the community may also wish to discuss more specific guidelines on how unproven but good-faith concerns of canvassing should be handled, or how accusations of misconduct with secret off-wiki evidence should be handled in general (since TurboSuperA+ makes a valid point that the existence of Template:Canvassed seems to encourage this kind of behaviour) - however, that may be beyond the scope of ANI. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 11:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im think (yes) at the very least there now needs to be a very firmly worded warning that if they ever make a false accusation again publicly there will be sanctions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the Arbitration case in full now I would agree that a logged warning for TurboSuperA+ at least is appropriate here. I certainly would not support a site block (as proposed above) as I do believe TurboSuperA+ did act in good faith - however they allowed the emotional intensity of a difficult page situation to cloud their better judgment. In addition I think @Chess makes a good point in the arbitration case - I think it'd be a good reminder to people that if they don't believe the evidence of canvassing they have is presentable in public they should not be making claims of specific editors being canvassed. If evidence must be private to avoid WP:OUTING then it should be fully private. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not surprised to see TurboSuperA+ at ANI again. I don’t believe the editor currently has the temperament for engaging in contentious topics, and this is compounded by inexperience in handling editorial conflict. That said, I do believe the editor has the potential to be a productive contributor to the project. For now, I would recommend avoiding political topics and would support a topic ban until the editor demonstrates an improved ability to collaborate constructively. Thanks!! Nemov (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ironic coming from an editor who accused me without evidence of being a sockpuppet, made a vague report without diffs, saying "Could be a big coincidence, but maybe not?" Based on vibes alone, a CheckUser was run. SPI page says at the top that diffs are required. Did Nemov get dragged through ANI for it? No. An editor even told them Keep up the good work! What good work? Baselessly accusing others of being sockpuppets?

  My suspicion regarding the two editors in question was misplaced, but as ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless. I even apologised for it.

  Still waiting on your apology, @Nemov. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I don't mean to hammer this point after TurboSuperA+ has apologised, but "as ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless" is a total misrepresentation of ArbCom's comments. ArbCom said there was "no credible evidence that any specific editors were canvassed". Frankly, it's concerning that TurboSuperA+ still doesn't grasp this. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 09:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There was evidence of canvassing, just no evidence that any editors in particular were canvassed. Would it have been better if I marked the whole RFC as canvassed with {{canvass warning}}?

  You even said yourself "For example: if there is a call to action on some external forum, but no evidence that anyone heeded it; or if there is evidence that some forum users heeded it, but there is no evidence of which Wikipedia accounts correspond to those forum users - then it is baseless to make accusations against specific Wikipedia editors."

  I agree, it is baseless to make accusations against specific Wikipedia editors in this case. However, my accusation of canvassing happening in regards to the RFC was not baseless, and is in fact supported by evidence. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Would it have been better if I marked the whole RFC as canvassed with {{canvass warning}}?"

  Yes, absolutely, because that would have been a general caution, not an accusation against any specific users expressing any specific opinions.

  As you said yourself, because there was no evidence that any specific editors had been canvassed, the accusations you made against specific editors were baseless. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 10:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, and I apologised for it. But the accusation of canvassing overall on the RFC was not baseless. I misapplied the template, that is my mistake. I should have used the canvass warning template on the whole thread. You live and you learn. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But you never made a general accusation that there was canvassing on the RFC (which wouldn't really have been an accusation anyway but a general alert); you accused two specific editors of being canvassed, and that was baseless.

  Sorry, it's concerning that even after ArbCom explicitly said not only that your evidence was not sufficient to be actionable, but that it included no credible evidence against any specific editors at all, you're still wikilawyering about whether your accusations were baseless or not. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 10:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  you accused two specific editors of being canvassed, and that was baseless.

  I agreed, said it was a mistake on my part and apologised for it.

  that it included no credible evidence against any specific editors at all,

  But it was evidence of canvassing Wikipedia editors to the RFC so that they would !vote on it in a certain way.

  Now it feels like you're just throwing whatever you can hoping something sticks. People get falsely accused on Wikipedia all the time. Rarely do they get so much as an apology after. You got your apology. You're not happy with the fact that you've been absolved of any wrongdoing, and are trying to argue that canvassing isn't canvassing unless specific editors can be tied to it. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TurboSuperA+, @Helpful Cat without making any judgement on who, if anyone, is right or wrong here, it is probably about time this particular discussion was just dropped. Arguing back and forth repeatedly while adding very little substantively new with each successive comment is not helping anyone. There may be other matters to discuss here about wider policy, but the accusations and evidence of canvassing have been thoroughly covered. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, I'll stop here. Thanks. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 13:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, TurboSuperA+ did apologise here. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 13:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, ArbCom discussion now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 131#Clarification request: Russo-Ukrainian War AN discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Our current policies have problematic language. For example, WP:HA in its list of exceptions regarding outing states If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator—but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority.

I believe, and I think experience on this notice board has shown, that pointing to confidential evidence that cannot be discussed is highly disruptive. There is no way to evaluate evidence, no opportunity to rebut it, and all the power in the discussion lies with the discloser.

The only way that offsite confidential evidence should be handled is confidentially. That is, no mention should be made to confidential evidence. I know this is frustrating to the person who reported the evidence, but is the only way to be fair to all the parties involved. The reported must trust the recipient of the evidence to properly handle the situation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't thought of that but of course you are right. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS says A simple statement onwiki that private evidence exists and was submitted may be appropriate, but additional details may not be appropriate. This is what I did. I guess that "may be" gives a lot of play room. The Template:Canvassed page similarly doesn't provide any help or guidance regarding its use.

I admit that I misapplied the template and will be more careful in the future. @Chess pointed out that the {{SPI-notice}} was removed following a similar kerfuffle. Can we do the same for {{canvassed}}? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user has only 2,000 edits, but more than 10% of those are to Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, in which they have bludgeoned disagreeing editors to an extreme extent. Let's take a look at a section on that page, North Korean troops are no longer involved. There are some deep threads that mostly consist of TurboSuperA+ arguing with other editors. FOARP aptly said, Can you just drop the stick on this one and stop bludgeoning this issue?, to which TurboSuperA+ replied by bludgeoning. They were the only editor supporting the change, but refused to drop the stick. This isn't the only instance of this on this talk page. In the thread above, about changing the infobox, TurboSuperA+ commented almost 30 times, continually bludgeoning while misrepresenting other editors' words. FOARP was even driven to using bold, italic, underlined, asterisked text to emphasize their viewpoint after this. Later down we see TurboSuperA+ asking Placeholderer a question. They answer the question. TurboSuperA+ says, That doesn't answer the question. Placeholderer responds, I explicitly did answer your question. If that isn't IDHT, I don't know what is.

Now this is all well and good, but the final nail in the coffin is Talk:Kursk offensive (2024–2025). At Talk:Kursk offensive (2024–2025)#Result parameter, TurboSuperA+ commented over 30 times, reverting almost as many times on the main article. For two months, against multiple editors, they have POV-pushed to claim, against sourcing, that the campaign ended in March. Simply incredible POV-pushing, bludgeoning, and ownership of these articles. To that end, I propose a topic ban from Ukraine, Russia, and the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, broadly constructed. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm involved here, obviously, but I did find their editing on the North Korean troops topic, and on the topic of whether the US/NATO should be listed in the infobox, incredibly tendentious - they admitted that the discussion was "pointless" but then just carried on and on and on. I don't see their contribution here as constructive. If the later discussions were a continuation of that behaviour then a time-out to go and edit in other, less controversial areas is in order. FOARP (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my back and forth with @User:Placeholderer they themselves wrote on my talk page: "For what it's worth, I don't think the back-and-forth with me should be taken as bludgeoning". TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For two months, against multiple editors, they have POV-pushed to claim, against sourcing, that the campaign ended in March.
  And yet those who oppose it haven't been able to get consensus to change the outcome, despite me not posting on the Talk page since I tagged the result as disputed. It has been some two weeks. It seems that editor consensus favours my edit. e.g.
  The concern is Russian Victory or Ukrainian Defeat. If anyone is arguing for 'ongoing' it makes me a little confused. diff
  @Unknown00000000 as the editor who changed my addition of "Russian victory" to "Ukrainian defeat", please note the above conventions regarding Template:Infobox military conflict. diff
  We could write "Ukrainian defeat", but it is generally not allowed. diff
  Even Slatersteven wrote "Certainly this seems to be the case." regarding the offensive ending.
  And so on... All of the editors are free to change their mind at any time, but it doesn't look like they did. And I repeat again, I have not posted to the talk page or edited the Kursk offensive 2024-2025 article for the last two weeks on purpose, to allow the opposing editors to build a consensus without my input.
  This can be seen as attempt by @Chicdat to bypass consensus regarding the result of Kursk offensive (2024–2025) by forum shopping. The talk page is replete with links to WP:RS and even TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Apparently I'm forum shopping. Weird. In my book, forum shopping looks a little more like this: (hidden) on request of several editors That is forum shopping. I'm not asking for any consensus to be overturned (as no consensus was ever found – the discussion is ongoing), so I'm not forum shopping. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am unrelated to this dispute and have no intention of wading into it, but no, that is not at all, not in the slightest, what forum shopping means. You can very politely and calmly raise an issue in a venue that you deem more favourable to your views or before a responsible individual that is likelier to act on your behalf. This need not even be a duplication of a previously existing request – it could be an initial request but raised through an unintuitive channel.

  The fact that you seem to think forum shopping is equivalent or at least limited to begging and/or extorting is worrying, especially from an apparently seasoned user. I would also ask you to please use a normal font. This is disruptive and the only reason I am replying to you is out of annoyance at having come across this when scrolling down at ANI. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chicdat, if you don't refactor this to tone down the gigantic allcaps I think you're seriously running the risk of catching a block from a passing admin who's on their last frayed nerve. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be pretty stupid. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enoughHidden. Yeah, I know what forum shopping is. It was an exaggeration, and not a very good joke considering where it's being posted. Forum shopping is when an editor posts the same or similar posts at multiple different places, in the hope of getting the result they want. E.G. if an editor posts a complaint against an editor at ANI and ANEW at the same time, or when an editor simultaneously opens an RM for a page and asks several admins who might support to move it. But more importantly, ANI is ANI, not a place for hyperbole. The eye instantly jumps to that text, I know. That was tasteless, poor humor that hyperbolizes policy. I don't really want a vexbysterang for something as stupid as this. A well-earned trout. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. A self-inflicted ANI wound is painful to watch from the sidelines too. And I can understand why you're annoyed enough that it was probably really satisfying to write at the time. -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, yeah, that's not forum shopping. At all. Forum shopping is posting the same thing at multiple boards (i.e. posting at AN, and ANI, and ANEW-) in hopes that one of them will produce the result you want, especially if it's reposting on other boards after the initial one didn't produce that result. The tone, wording, etc. doesn't matter - it's possible to entirely civilly forum shop. I'd strongly suggest you re-read WP:FORUMSHOP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban The response to my comment above shows that the editor still doesn't get it. Any time their behavior is addressed, they go on the offensive. On these topics the editor isn't helping the project and continues to be a time drain. Nemov (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I simply pointed out that you voting to TBAN me for false accusations is ironic, since you falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet without any evidence. You never admitted your mistake nor apologised, whereas I both admitted to my mistake and apologised. Everyone who posts in an ANI thread should expect that their own behaviour will also be scrutinised. Now you're trying to deflect scrutiny by saying essentially that this thread is about me, not you. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should review WP:ASPERSIONS. Your responses aren’t helping your case here. I have nothing to apologize for, requesting a sockpuppet check is fairly routine, especially when an editor has no edit history, is behaving in a disruptive manner, is misapplying policies, and is editing the same topic as a previously blocked user. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet for far less and, frankly, I’m not concerned. Nemov (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"editing the same topic as a previously blocked user"
Making stuff up doesn't help your case. I have never been blocked before. Please strike that out. On second reading, I see that you meant something else. It's the "as" that threw me off. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose I've said above I think this is all pretty much indicative of the WP:BATTLEGROUND situation. TurboSuperA+ believed they were behaving correctly and when it was demonstrated they were not they apologized. Spurious SPI reports are, like tagging COIs on the basis of private evidence, allowed by Wikipedia, but they're not exactly best-practice either. It's all too common in CTOPs to try and remove new editors while established editors get grace based on edits elsewhere and SPI fishing expeditions are definitely part of that pattern of behaviour. I would encourage TurboSuperA+ to diversify their editing and to further develop their collaborative editing skills but they are far from the only person at that talk page who has bludgeoning and civility issues. I don't think TurboSuperA+ has clean hands here. They made mistakes. But I think WP:ROPE is appropriate in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Simonm223, Are you characterizing my innocuous SPI request, a pattern of behavior or spurious? If so you need to clarify your remarks, because I have submitted very few SPI and this one was approved for checkuser. This is the 2nd time in the past few days you have made inane[5] remarks about my good faith edits. I would caution you to work in good faith and stop making accusations about my motives. Nemov (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's clear I'm not very happy about comportment in general on that page. I was not, however, attempting to single you out. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak and reluctant support. I've noted that TurboSuperA+'s previous admin warning was also about baseless accusations of conspiracy against other editors, specifically in the Russia/Ukraine topic area.

Now that ArbCom has confirmed that the "evidence" submitted by TurboSuperA+ contained no credible evidence that any specific editors were canvassed, I can't help but feel that these latest accusations are an escalation of that very specific pattern. Even if they believed they had evidence of canvassing in general, I struggle to understand how or why someone who has no credible evidence against anyone at all would immediately jump to choosing two specific users to publicly accuse of being canvassed - frankly, no possible explanation is flattering, good-faith or not, and at best it indicates a lack of judgment and a tendency for conspiratorial thinking that is not conducive to participation in a contentious topic.

Editors who have a history of making groundless accusations, especially in one topic area, should not be able to continue doing so by hiding behind confidential evidence sent to ArbCom when it turns out this evidence was not credible (even if they truly believed their evidence was credible and their accusations were true).

(Note: since TurboSuperA+ has pointed out an instance where another user raised a suspicion that they were a sockpuppet, I have to note that there's a difference between raising a suspicion for discussion at the designated page for such suspicions and providing an explanation on one hand, and unilaterally tagging users within an ongoing RFC with no explanation on the other)

I also second the point about WP:OWN behaviour in this topic area, such as the heavy implication that users need to justify their participation in RFCs TurboSuperA+ has started ("I don't find Sonnyvalentino's explanation convincing at all. They said they found the RFC on a "list". What list? Where?").

I also strongly endorse this statement: "continually bludgeoning while misrepresenting other editors' words. FOARP was even driven to using bold, italic, underlined, asterisked text to emphasize their viewpoint after this" (emphasis mine). This is one of the most frustrating and consistent aspects of discussions with TurboSuperA+, where they misrepresent and strawman what other users say and use this to WP:BLUDGEON a point that no one is actually making. (For instance, I experienced this here and cited it in my original post). Participation in a contentious topic surely requires a baseline ability and willingness to accurately comprehend and engage with text, including both article text and comments by other editors.

I recognise that this is a fairly major sanction, so I would be open to putting a time limit on the topic ban, for example. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 18:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban Per Chicdat and evident track record, aggressive and WP:TENDENTIOUS editor spending a large amount of time in this CTOP is doing more harm than good. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that I haven't posted on the Talk:Kursk offensive (2024–2025) page in a while, you found @Smeagol 17 to call a POV-pusher and imply that they spread Russian propaganda. This is starting to look like a WP:1AM situation, where you're the only one with the neutral POV, and everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian propagandist and needs to be TBAN-ed. You also accused @SaintPaulOfTarsus (and others) of wanting to include information just because it is about Russians: "The only reason this is being pushed is because the alleged victims were Russians". Even @Mr rnddude called you out on it. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban, support trout for aspersions at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. I haven't followed the other pages' discussions; Idk if they're substantially worse or not, but if they are then read this comment with that in mind. I'm more concerned here with what I perceive as civility issues than with POV pushing in mainspace, having not seen—in my limited focus (for this discussion's purposes) on Russian invasion of Ukraine—much in the way of unconstructive mainspace edits. It's challenging to keep up civility as a frequent minority perspective, and at times other editors contribute to general incivility, too Placeholderer (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef – I'm fairly convinced that this user has shown clear battleground behaviour. Whether through violating [6] WP:BRD (initiated by another user [7][8]), edit-warring over the inclusion of contentious material [9][10][11], then bludgeoning, which is problematic, I don't like it removal [12], which was thankfully reverted [13], or citing [14][15] unreliable sources [16][17] like RBC-Ukraine and Anadolu Agency. Now that we know their canvassing charges based on spurious evidence were nothing but a hoax and a total waste of time for ArbCom, and now they're misinterpreting the judgment while issuing a fauxpology by totally doctoring it as as ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless, it only makes things worse for their case. It's obvious that this user failed to WP:AGF, for which they were previously warned [18], and has serious I don't hear that / I don't think so issues. Doug had also previously warned them for this battleground behaviour [19], but unfortunately, in reply, Turbo said: Stop threatening me. I have made 4 comments on the RFC, while Slatersteven has made 6. They have been found POV-pushing and inserting their WP:OR assertions (pinging Choucas0) on Vladimir Bukovsky. Given their previous accusations and aspersions toward other users, I'm inclined to support an indefinite block. The length of WP:ROPE has been shortened. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, behaviour falls below par for a CT, I also find their recent report at AE a bit battleground, the user had just been given a tban, which are notoriously unintuitive, and violated it. Turbo could've at least left a message at the user's talk page to give them a chance to self revert/ping the blocking admin there to explain it, but instead it was escalated to AE to try to get them indeffed. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The lack of not shuting the eff up about this, here at ani is leading me towards a TBAN, Turbo STFU and drop it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I was pinged here by TurboSuperA+, regrettably as I tend to avoid visiting this page. Three charges are levied against TSA+ here: pov-pushing, ownership, and bludgeoning. I base my !vote primarily on direct experience as a major contributor to Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine mentioned here.^[a]
  I have seen nothing approaching ownership behaviour from TSA+ there and nothing here suggests that ownership behaviour is present at the other article either. Chicdat writes that TurboSuperA+ commented over 30 times, reverting almost as many times on the main article. The former claim appears true, but the latter a fabrication. By my count, TSA+ has edited the article 19 times in the past 500 edits dating back to March 12th. These edits include four direct reverts and several other removals, but the majority of their edits appear uncontested. The next 500 edits date back to September 2024 and do not contain a single edit from TSA+. These are not indicative of ownership, pervasive edit-warring, or other conduct issues. Just routine editing with occasional disputes stemming from this being an active CTOP.
  TSA+ has a viewpoint on the conflict, and I suspect they would consider myself as having an opposing perspective; but the mere having of a POV, even fringe, does not constitute pov-pushing, which occurs when an editor tries to aggressively force their viewpoint into an article. Based on the mainspace edits, the evidence for this accusation must be on the talk page. TSA+ is a significant contributor to only one discussion there. They have bludgeoned that discussion – they appear frustrated by the perceived fixation on minutiae – but this is an isolated incident. On Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, I recall that TSA+ has occasionally overstepped bounds into bludgeon territory, as many other editors have as such discussions can become heated so a degree of leeway is necessary for disputes to be settled. Chicdat cites the ongoing RfC on the invasion talk page as an example of this issue. In the RfC, TSA+ has an extensive back and forth with predominantly Placeholderer but also a couple other editors under their own comment. This is not an example of bludgeoning.^[b] I only found two replies outside of their own OP sub-thread. Beyond that there is also the 'North Korean involvement' discussion and I'd say they should drop the stick, but they already have with an apparently satisfactory resolution having been achieved nearly a month ago. This may be less than ideal, but is hardly egregious.
  I agree with Placeholderer that TSA+ is at a general disadvantage because they hold a minority viewpoint.^[c] It is best to avoid protracted debates with editors holding opposing views. Minority viewpoint holding editors – especially in CTOPs – are both at an inherent disadvantage. The majority of such editors eventually either quit editing the CTOP of their own volition because they rarely find any productive progress being made or find themselves removed.
  Summary: Insufficient, if any, evidence of ownership; minimal evidence of disruptive pov-pushing, especially in mainspace; adequate evidence of bludgeoning, but not worthy of immediate sanction on consideration of additional factors. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is quite a bit of discussion above about the number and percentage of edits involved. Rather that users going back and forth on the numbers, here are the numbers I have compiled as of 09:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC): First: Regarding the number of edits to Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, TurboSuperA+ has made 250 per the User Contribution Search tool (UCS) for a percentage of about 12.33% overall. (250/2028) Second: Regarding the number of comments to the discussion called "RfC: Should the US and/or NATO be added to the infobox in light of new NYT article?" at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, TurboSuperA+'s signature shows up 21 times. The prior search using the UCS tool shows 24 edits when searching by edit summary, of which three edits indicate that they made two alterations to existing comments and one edit indicates it being moved to a different position. Third: Regarding the number of comments to the discussion currently called "Result parameter" at Talk:Kursk offensive (2024–2025), TurboSuperA+'s signature shows up 33 times. The UCS tool is not as effective here due to multiple threads being renamed. With manual adding: 5 edits were made to the first thread; 16 edits to the second thread; 8 edits to the third thread; 2 edits to the fourth thread; 1 edit to the fifth thread before renaming; and 8 edits to the fifth thread after renaming. Total counted edits is 40 with at least 6 edits appearing to be adjustments to existing comments. This seems to be nearly in line with the prior count of 33 signatures. Fourth: Regarding the number of edits made to Kursk offensive (2024–2025), The UCS tool reports 19 edits of which 4 of the edits appear to be reverts of other edits. Hopefully this clears up any confusion on the numbers and can allow more discussion elsewhere. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)[reply]
• Support placing TurboSuperA+ on Balanced Editing Restriction per @Simonm223 if the filter gets created 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per evidence presented by Mr rnddude. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The issues of the removal of sources and battleground mentality apparently persist, which Mr rnddude has overlooked. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In this ANI I note, a case of not taking any notice? Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Battleground mentality should be taken in context. Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine has had persistent civility issues at a general scale, and incivility prompts incivility. I could pick out some quotes if that would help rather than taking my word for it Placeholderer (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban With the latest refusal to not STFU and make it about the same user (but with an "But I do appooigs" at the end) I think we will be back here sooner rather than latter, when they decide to fight their corner again. So it might be best if they edited in a less contentious area for now. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Stumbled across an attempt at off-wiki canvassing for this discussion[20] Placeholderer (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh for the love of... See this is why I hate WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff. Can we please just close this off somehow before we're drowning in Redditors?

  For the record I still think the appropriate course of action is either a logged warning or a balanced editing restriction. TurboSuperA+ is a new editor and I think they have some growing to do but I do think they are committed to a neutral encyclopedia and I would like them to have the chance to do that growing. Furthermore it's hard to judge them too harshly for a bit of paranoia when there really are threads on Reddit agitating against them personally. And, like, please can everybody just remember WP:AGF and WP:CIV going forward and stay the hell off Reddit for Wikipedia stuff? Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That Reddit OP seems to be a chronic canvasser. Their Reddit post history is full of Wikipedia Israel/Palestine posts. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 16:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW the post was 7 days ago, so the flood risk is probably passed Placeholderer (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I found this as well yesterday. That same Reddit user also posted Talk:Azov Brigade during the RFC, and I also found this Wikipediocracy thread.

  If this is the entirety of the secret evidence, it definitely falls into the category of "evidence of attempted canvassing; no evidence anyone responded, let alone evidence of who responded".

  (For clarity, I found all these threads for the first time while searching yesterday; I was not involved in any of them, nor am I acquainted with any of the participants. I don't subscribe to that subreddit, neither do I use Wikipediocracy) Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 16:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think these posts should be taken to accuse anyone of being canvassed. I don't really know what they should be taken for at all—just figured I should share Placeholderer (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely, I didn't think you were accusing anyone - just thought I should clarify (and add the other links I found). Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 16:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'm personally more worried that the longer this persists open the more likely it is that we will get over-eager Redditors muddying the waters of an already convoluted AN/I posting. Was not trying to imply even that any of these "fellas" had responded to the canvasing request as of yet. Frankly, from their comments about Israel / Palestine, and a quick perusal of their other sub-reddits it would not surprise me if the Redditor who originally posted the request wasn't someone long since blocked. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I know this is a comment often made against Wikipedia contributors to disparage them, but some people really need to get a life. If you want to make a relevant comment here, you can. Wikipedia is open and transparent. Posting on Reddit to complain about an editor's conduct here just seems like a waste of time for everyone involved. (not directed towards anyone in this thread, only to the Redditors) Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Another solution might be moving this to WP:AE, which would not be affected by any canvassing issues and at the same time, the issues regarding the user can be thoroughly scrutinized. Logichulk (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This AN/I filing is a bit long in the tooth to refer to AE at this point IMO. We've got a lot of different opinions here. What's needed is for an admin to figure out what the consensus is. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment:. See https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. Yes, the user has 250 edits to that page. But he is only 13th in the "users by the number of edits" list. (One user has 1,316 edits!) And there are some names above him that may be familiar to you. One, two places above him, was just recently discussed here for "potential Holocaust revisionism". Quoting Mr rnddude, I agree with Placeholderer that TSA+ is at a general disadvantage because they hold a minority viewpoint. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"And there are some names above him that may be familiar to you. One, two places above him, was just recently discussed here for 'potential Holocaust revisionism'."

Sorry, I don't see how that's relevant here. That editor was also topic-banned and isn't involved in this discussion. Every editor's conduct should be assessed on its own merits. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 04:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there's a tool that would be useful here and that may split the difference between a topic ban and doing nothing. I propose a Balanced Editing Restriction be imposed on TurboSuperA+ following the current Arbcom language concerning what such a restriction entails. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that every time I visit the ANI, a new report against TurboSuperA+ is there? 🙏 This one seems to be really long, too. Is there any summary of what's happening here? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because they are constantly causing problems and violating policies. TylerBurden (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with Nemov. It's not as surprising as you're making it seem, considering their last ANI resulted in a topic ban. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting proposal and I think it may be a good idea. Per WP:UBER, does an edit filter currently exist to implement this outside the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? Are editors expected to count the number of edits they make per month, and the number of edits within the affected topic area, in order to comply with the restriction? Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 18:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I don't do much Wikipedia stuff on weekends ut will follow up with further details Monday. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got an answer to these questions at WP:UBER. See here: [21]

In short a new edit filter would probably need to be created. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for following up. It looks like this is probably theoretically feasible, but would take a long time and a fair bit of technical effort to implement. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely technically feasible. I cannot speak to the level of effort required. I'll be honest. I haven't done any work with edit filters on WP and do not know how much effort is involved ins setting them up. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please no, using extremely complicated restrictions such as this creates more burden for the project - as opposed to finding a way to make less burden for the project in response to disruption. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with Xaosflux. The restriction is very convoluted. I'd request uninvolved admins to consider closing this proposal, as this remedy is unlikely to stop their disruption instead it would pile-up more sets of work for volunteer editors. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have never posted on ANI before, how did you find this thread? Why is it so important for you that I get TBAN-ed? The only thread we have both posted in was the Kshatriya RFC. You don't even edit in the RUSUKR topic area. I think you're trying to get revenge because I had a different opinion regarding whether Kshatriyas have Rajput status (they don't). TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TurboSuperA+, ANI is a high traffic noticeboard and is open to any editor to contribute to discussions. Srimant ROSHAN has actually previously commented at ANI on 21 April 2025. Your comment appears to me to be a case of casting aspersions. I would strongly encourage you to drop this battleground behaviour yourself. I have not !voted or commented on any of the sanction proposals as I do not feel adequately informed to say whether they are justified one way or the other, but if you keep it up with belligerent behaviour like this a community sanction is likely to be the only option. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 13:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it odd that an editor with whom I've never interacted before seems to be so invested in getting me TBAN'd from a topic area where they don't edit. That's all. Others I can understand, I've had several disagreements with them in the past. Yes, they've made a single edit on ANI previously, and then made 4 comments in this thread. Why this thread and not any of the dozen other ones? I think that's a legitimate question. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have mentioned, you have previously interacted with this editor. The noticeboards are centralised discussion spaces where any editor with a relevant opinion can comment on a matter under discussion. It may be that they have only seen two discussions here to which they feel they can add something. I noticed they have also contributed to discussions at other centralised noticeboards such as WP:ARE and WP:AfD. There are many ways they could have come across this thread, e.g. through watching this page or having seen the ANI notice at your talk page. Additionally, all Wikimedia contributors are volunteers and are free to contribute as and where they see fit. My own contributions to ANI are spotty at best - I don't have a lot of free time and so prefer to focus on article space, Commons and Wikidata, although often find myself going down rabbit holes. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 14:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're again failing to WP:Assume good faith. I have nothing personal against you, so please don't get me wrong. Voluntarily participating in an ANI thread is never prohibited. You've never participated in any RfC where I have, nor have we even intersected before. So it's up to you to explain how I'm on a revenge campaign. I'm in favor of an indef, not a T-ban -- both are different. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I can't help but notice that "how did you find this ANI thread?" is just a continuation of "how did you find this RFC??", which is how we got here. I understand that being discussed at ANI can be very stressful, but I really think TurboSuperA+ might want to take a step back and avoid digging the hole even deeper. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 04:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've never participated in any RfC where I have

You !voted on an RFC that I closed.

4_template� I'm just wondering why out of 30+ topics at ANI right now, you chose to post in this one. You also didn't post once, but you posted 5 times. Including responding to those who disagree with a TBAN. I'm just wondering why is it so important to you that I get indeffed, especially when we have never "even intersected before"?

You also went months back into my edit history, only to misrepresent what had happened. For example, you wrote: "They have been found POV-pushing and inserting their WP:OR assertions (pinging Choucas0) on Vladimir Bukovsky." when the opposite is true. I was arguing against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and the only POV I was "pushing" was that of WP:RS (including the police, the courts, the experts). Also, I was not "found" to be doing anything, you simply invented that out of thin air.

So forgive me if I don't immediately believe that you are just a concerned editor who just happened to come across the thread. Forgive me for thinking you might be an editor with a grudge who went through my whole editing history, just throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.

I apologise for my wrong and disruptive thoughts. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo, this is WP:ASPERSIONS. You don't want to be here. I don't want you to be here. You want to edit without drawing attention. I want you to edit without drawing attention. Stop digging the hole. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo accused two users with whom they were in dispute of being canvased (off wiki), they objected. There was a too and throw over at a talk page that derailed a thread. I then said "stop if you have a complaint, take it to ani", which one of them did. There was more tooing and throwing, then someone pointed out there was a lack of evidence of canvassing, so Turbo apologized, then there was more tooing and throwing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

The OP accepted the apology. then there was more tooing and throwing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an accurate summary. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term you're looking for is "to and froing". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the funniest example of over-correction for an accent I have ever heard/read. -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to say anything because I kind of liked the evolution of the phrase in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Not Real Name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be edit warring in Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction [22][23] [24] [25].

The issue is discussed here: Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#Recent_changes. I had already suggested WP:DR. I also tried to resolve some of the issues in user talk page: User_talk:John_Not_Real_Name#User_conduct_dispute

They are adding unsourced content and too many quotes.

There might be some potential WP:CIR issues:

• Why not? I am a new editor and I have basically been bullied into accepting a change by another editor. All that needs to occur is two people backing a change and you will lose as a result as you cannot edit-war. It is a stupid system. Why should I change my view, what makes the other person's view correct? Why should it be prose instead of an accurate quotation? [26]
• Edit-wars are thrice not twice [27]
• Wikipedia:Help desk topic

Also some WP:Civil issues: Some people on here are imbecilic but we are all equal after all [28], Can you not read? [29]

The editor had also added some random commentary within articles as hidden comments:

• <!-- This is historically obtuse. The Greeks in many places were still resisting the Ottomans and indeed would rather kill themselves than be enslaved. What would be the response exactly? There were Wars ongoing. --> [30]

• <!-- I am not quibbling with the details necessarily but the Circassians were being systematically enslaved, raped and more by the ottomans as well. They were the premier concubine class including in East-Africa. After the genocide the price of Concubines went down and people had many. --> [31]

• [32]

The first one above is really problematic as it comes after mention of massacres against Muslims and Jews in article text. Bogazicili (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why this seems to be ignored by administrators? Bogazicili (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on their talk page pointing out issues with their behavior as mentioned here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger:, thanks, hopefully this will resolve the issue. Bogazicili (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the WP:CIR issue.

I had suggested dispute resolution such as 3rd opinion or dispute resolution noticeboard, but John Not Real Name just pinged someone involved in the article.[33]

Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction is also a contentious topic. John Not Real Name is aware of contentious topics. [34] Bogazicili (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? I asked if @Demetrios1993 could take part because I knew he was involved in the article. I have no clue about his point of view. I already sent a Third Party thing separately. I asked you if we could have him take part. If you had written no then that would have been the end of it. As I wrote, I had by this point already sent the Third Party thing as you can see with this link: ( Active disagreements ). If you did not want him involved, this is non-binding anyway, you could have indicated and that would be the end of it. Would you just stop calling me incompetent every ten seconds? John Not Real Name (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already cut down the length of quotes I used and repeatedly stated that if you wished you can cut down the quotes as long as you keep the gist of the meaning.

That was months ago and I have already been learned as you show with the next example. I meant the three revert rule. I used edit wars as a term incorrectly and you were the one to start the tiff.

Yeah, I did that months back and I think you corrected me. Why are you bringing that back up? I have not repeated it. I would like to clarify the first comment, I was not implying it was okay to attack jews and muslims given that I was not writing about jews or muslims. I was writing about the response towards Greeks (If you see the text, I had included it after "In response,".) and shewed that Greeks were still resisting ottoman forces before the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829) and that extract was specifically about "Dance of Zalongo" (1803). My point being that the implication the reprisals were in response to Greek actions against jews and muslims is "historically obtuse" since there was ongoing resistance against the ottomans to which this was typically the response by the ottomans: "In another part of Epirus, a group of no more than 200 Souliotes managed to defend themselves. After numerous battles, a few families managed to retreat to Parga. This “disgrace” could not be tolerated by Ali. He ordered his troops to kill every Souliote family that lived dispersed in his pashalik, and he sent the seventy Souliote families who had surrendered to him to inhabit the most desolate spots in his pashalik.

The eviction and the catastrophe made Souliotes flee to Corfu. In 1820, they reached an agreement with Ali Pasha, and turned back to their homeland, fighting this time side by side with Ali against the Ottoman Empire. Nevertheless, in no more than a year, Souliotes became part of the Greek War of Independence, thus leaving their land forever." from here: ( Zalongo incident ). Please retract that statement or at least write you misinterpreted what I wrote. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger, despite explaining WP:OR in user talk page in User_talk:John_Not_Real_Name#User_conduct_dispute and in User_talk:John_Not_Real_Name#ANI_notice, the editor insists in making WP:OR additions: [35][36] Bogazicili (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC) see below Bogazicili (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger No, I have not. I am trying to find a compromise that does not assert anything whilst clarifying that the text does not mention anything specific regarding Christian persecution. I asked him to find where in the text he finds the assertion that Christians caused the population decline and he has not but ironically he performs original research by citing other sources and claiming that must be what the text means as can be seen here: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290856354&oldid=1290851088 ), ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290860940&oldid=1290860793 ) and here: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290869353&oldid=1290867630 ). He is trying to use these separate and different sources to claim something about Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk's source. In fact he has repeatedly used this to claim it as evidence that it was Christian persecution alone which is WP:OR by his own standards. If you read the exchange I have done my best to mollify my own assertions as much as possible in the hopes of reaching a compromise. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Involved, as I responded to a WP:3O for this content dispute With no comment on the earlier section of the report, I think Bogazicili is overreaching. The content part of the dispute seems to being solved on the talk page, but both the links that Bogazicili provided are for talk page, not mainspace. WP:OR specifically states, This policy does not apply to talk pages. As for OR in the article, I think the talk page is dealing with that issue, and no administrator intervention is needed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see there was indeed a second source that John Not Real Name cited, sorry for the mistake!

The article talk page got very confusing. Bogazicili (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thank You for the retraction. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes, especially for long and sensitive discussions. I appreciate you clarifying things for us! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting a pattern of uncivil, disruptive, and battleground-style behavior by User:Polygnotus over the course of several months on the Talk:Landmark Worldwide page. While Polygnotus frequently references policy (e.g. WP:NPOV), their conduct includes repeated personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, refusal to constructively engage in collaboration, and hostile commentary directed at multiple editors. Their behavior is making it difficult to achieve consensus and is driving away participation from other editors. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1212911203#RfC_-_Undue_weight_given_to_%27Cult_accusations%27? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1212915523 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1213913940 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1214510892  

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1214042289 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1212918161 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1214511075 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1214563401 

I request that administrators review this behavior for violations of: