Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I am posting here because user:bloodofox has been chronically and intractably stubborn, argumentative, and belittling to fellow editors. They have displayed a WP:OWNership attitude about articles they have written and topics they're involved with.

To provide some context and evidence of a long-term pattern, they've been at AE three times: November 2016, which resulted in a year-long topic ban from the Clintons; May 2020; and December 2023 which was closed with "All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views."

More recently, in december 2024, theleekycauldron nominated an article of theirs for deletion. Their response to a good-faith nomination was No and learn the basics before even nominating something like this. This is just obnoxious. [...] There's a lot to do on Wikipedia and attempting to delete well-sourced and well-written articles on topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about isn't one of them. During the discussion, they were hostile and condescending, even editing their messages to be more hostile —

• Again, you'd be wise to become familiar with even the basic of fundamentals with a topic before injecting yourself into a discussion regarding it. These aren't "story summaries", which you'd know if you read the article you're trying to delete. [...] This drive to delete well-sourced material useful for readers over actually working to improve Wikipedia is absurd.
• Spend less time on pages like this and more time actually reading about these subjects before wasting your time and the time of others, or maybe even spend that time attempting to improve the project in some way. What you're up to here is essentially Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

This is exemplary of a pattern of behavior where bloodofox asserts that those who disagree with them must be unfamiliar with the topic and/or acting in bad faith.

• June 2024: From your response, it appears that you are new to this topic.
• November 2024: If you can't function on even the most basic level on Wikipedia, then maybe spend your time doing something else.; Or maybe you could briefly glanced at the article before you decided to try to revert war? Maybe invest in a punching bag rather than trying to take whatever it is you're dealing with out on random Wikipedia volunteers. JBW gently requested they reconsider their messages and be more civil, and bloodofox doubled down.
• April 2025: ForsythiaJo added to an article which bloodofox had previously rewritten, and all of their contributions were immediately reverted. Bloodofox accused them of censorship over a fairly simple good-faith content dispute — As long as you continue to censor the lead, your edits will be reverted on sight. (link); This article is a common target for would-be censors [...] Attempts at censoring this article (WP:CENSOR) will be reverted on sight. (link); You need to read the article and, for that matter, more about the topic before writing about it (link)

This brings us to current behavior. The discussion at Talk:Braucherei has been going on since March; the whole talk page is a mess, and bloodofox is hardly the only person being hostile and making accusations — however, it is worth noting that after confronting another editor for canvassing, they themselves blatantly canvassed at FTN and were called out on it by FactOrOpinion (link), Nil Einne (link), and Jessintime (link).

I first encountered them during discussion around Bæddel and bædling. It was promoted to GA in December, and FA in early February, appearing on the main page as TFA on April 17. By April 20, bloodofox had started no fewer than 10 talk page sections. On june 3 they added two more after a hiatus on the article. To date, they have contributed 53% of the talk page's text, overwhelming everyone else in the discussion; over three times as much text as the next biggest contributor, and twice as much as the actual article in question. This is not including times the article has been brought to other pages, such as Borsoka's talk page (link), where he adopted a somewhat condescending attitude, calling him "a new editor here", and defending changes made against talk page consensus by noting If corrections are not applauded, the system is broken. When Borsoka noted that they were ignoring the views of other editors, they responded How? I'm easily the most active individual on the talk page and as I review the article I am finding a plethora of issues.

Bloodofox regularly belittles other editors based on not having a real-life academic background in linguistics (something that Wikipedia, as a volunteer project, does not require).

• To clarify your understanding, what is your background in linguistics? (link)
• The primary issue here is that article was rubber stamped by editors without a background in linguistics (link)
• Did anyone in these reviews have a background in linguistics? (link)
• only editors with familiarity with linguistics should have been involved in the review (link)

ImaginesTigers indicated he has an academic background: FYI: I have a relevant academic background, although I don't think this matters much and I wouldn't brandish it like a dubious flag. Such things have been abused in the past (see Essjay controversy) (link) and this was interpreted this as a full attack on bloodofox's character: First, you've written this response aimed at critiquing me personally. I find the comparison to the Essjay controversy outrageous, insulting, and beyond the pale. Please strike that and refactor your text: Seriously, are you here to improve the article or to attack an individual editor? A reminder: this is a linguistics topic. If editors are uncomfortable or ungrounded in linguistics, they're going to have a hard time. (link) He mentioned this again later despite ImaginesTigers and FAR coord Nikkimaria asking that this be litigated elsewhere.

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

"insisting that one must be a specialist in a field to have the final say on any content matter" is just outright untrue (how would I even do that? I have no control over that) and these quotes are cherry-picked out of context from a period spanning nearly a decade (2016, seriously!). Having happily collaborated and worked with many, many editors over the years on thousands of articles, I've long learned it doesn't pay to revert-war and all sourcing concerns should be on talk.

Spending all that time trawling through my many thousands of edits all the way back to 2016 (again, 2016!) and pasting them here without any context (like me responding to ideological drive-by editing at Mami Wata or the constant, well-documented new religious movement attempts to control Falun Gong and related articles—sourced in the article no less) while quite selectively pinging anyone I've had a disagreement with over the past several years will of course just result in a dogpile on me by anyone who wants to get their digs in and is not something I personally would do to anyone.

I get that you're unhappy about the discussion around your featured article, like me finding that you had completely misattributed a source and indeed that nobody at FA checked it before passing it along, but you could have just as simply engaged in source discussion with the several of us discussing it at your featured article review. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the AE incidents from 2016-2023 are only briefly mentioned at the beginning, to establish that this is a long-running issue - that is normal at ANI, where people often ask for evidence of long-term behavioral patterns. one other quote from june 2024 is also a brief footnote. everything else, the bulk of the report, is from november 2024 to the present. i would hardly call that trawling through a decade of your edits (it's easier to skim user-talk page archives anyway) - these recent talk page discussions make up a substantial proportion, if not the majority, of your contributions in the last few months. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the time I've had on Wikipedia for the past several months has been spent rewriting Braucherei (it uncontroversially needed it) and a few related articles or attempting to get sources confirmed and discussed when I encounter an issue. This is a fishing expedition that involves the editor sifting through my editor history to cherry pick quotes and highlight 'incidents' from articles as diverse as Mami Wata and Falun Gong, both of which are indeed for different reasons targets for drive-by attempts at censorship and scrubbing (as anyone can see from their talk pages or edit histories). This is a classic case of a handful of aggrieved editors trawling through my edit history to find cherry-picked examples and present them out of context while neglecting to mention their own actions and pinging anyone else I might have had a talk page disagreement with that might want to pile on. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

was pinged as part of evidence: ah, yeah, that AfD. that was a genuinely awful experience. Generalissima does a pretty good job of laying out what happened in that AfD, so I'll just add that I really was making an effort to raise my concerns and understand bloodofox's points. I like learning new things and I don't expect to understand everything perfectly on the first try – that's what makes DYK work really fun for me. But the way they blew up at me felt really hurtful and intimidating, and between that and the pings, i just gave up and the AfD closed. I've seen other discussions involving bloodofox that I would've wanted to participate in, but the interaction we had in that AfD was so terrible that the idea of stepping into another discussion to disagree with them seemed pointless and exhausting, so I just decided not to. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD, where you argued to delete the article outright, was in fact a snowball keep because what you claimed about the article was incorrect, not because of some nefarious action on my part. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't a snowball keep, bloodofox, so please don't misrepresent the discussion – the AfD ran the full seven days, and that's despite you having canvassed 5 of the 7 other keep votes. But this discussion isn't about content, it's about conduct – I never said that the AfD closed as keep because of your incivility, as if incivility is only a problem when it affects the outcome. It's the opposite: even being right isn't enough. Just in this thread, I'm seeing lots of other people come forward with their stories of how you derided them as incompetent, negligent, or bad-faith, and how it discouraged them from working with you. It wouldn't matter if you were 100% right on every single content dispute cited here – that's still not an acceptable way to treat people. I know how each one of those people felt trying to accomplish anything working with you, and that's why I wrote into this thread and spoke up – trust me when I say that I really didn't want to relive and repeat that experience. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Bloodofox tends to put his criticisms a lot more trenchantly than I would, but this keeps coming up because they're an expert in several fields where Wikipedia has relatively few experts, or at least few who are now active to the extent of monitoring everything on their watchlists: Norse mythology, Germanic linguistics, folklore. In a crowdsourced project, people are sometimes going to edit beyond their knowledge (goodness knows, I have), and this arises especially at the intersections of specialties (such as with Bæddel and bædling, it's a Germanic philology topic but also a queer history topic). I've expressed myself with bewilderment over Bæddel and bædling that his expert rewrite has been constantly opposed and that despite repeated explanations, it seems yet more discussion is always needed before the article can actually be improved; it seems counter to the whole spirit of Wikipedia collaboration, and to what I found when I looked up the process for improving an FA. I also participated in a recent deletion discussion, probably the one referred to, which was robust but ended in "keep and improve" after I and others marshalled usable sources and explained the cultural/scholarly context. Bloodofox has numerous GAs to his name, showing a commitment to quality as well as to encyclopedic coverage, while I just don't have any interest in GA or FA processes. Sometimes smoke means fire, there will be disagreements on the project, and it's quite easy to get into a topic that turns out to have been extensively studied (especially if you haven't previously written similar articles and don't realize what they should cover). And Bloodofox is rarely denying people's right to edit or opine on a topic, rather than—robustly and trenchantly, and often with specific citations—pointing out the relevant scholarship. In addition to actually editing the article, with citations. Except for the very direct, sometimes abrasive phrasing, I'd say those are all good collaboration. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir, despite some overlap in linguistic interests, I have not encountered bloodofox organically in talk space, so I lack that piece to consider whether your assessment or that of the numerous parties complaining here is closer to the mark. But that said, we have seen BOO involved in a non-trivial number of high-conflict discussions here and FTN. And just in terms of the many diffs cited in the early going in this discussion, we have more than sufficient cause to doubt "Bloodofox is rarely denying people's right to edit or opine on a topic" as an accurate summary of their conduct in disputes. Indeed, they seem to fall back upon this variety of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:Gatekeeping with serious abandon whenever confronted with positions contrary to their own in areas that they have defined as within their wheelhouse.

Further, even if they were in fact "rarely" indulging in such a habit, that would still be a serious concern: they've been on this project for far too long to not be fully aware that we do no restrict access to articles on the basis of demonstrated academic credentials, for a bevy of reasons. They should not be engaging in any degree of effort to restrict or discourage other editors on this basis whatsoever--let alone with the frequency and the hostile, bullying tone that we are seeing in numerous of the diffs presented here. These behaviours (which, let's be clear, are only one component of larger issues that have been documented above) raise basic temperament/competency concerns, and bluntly, seeing just the evidence that has come up even this soon into the report makes it clear that the community is overdue in putting the full breaks on this behaviour. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't "own" any articles, nor have I stopped anyone from doing anything. I don't even have that ability: I'm not an admin, I don't revert-war, and these are all cherry-picked quotes form thousands of talk page discussion about content, content disputes. I've written, rewritten, and edited thousands of articles over decades now in collaboration with thousands of editors. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one am amenable, in principle, to the argument that these are outlier behaviours. But if I am perfectly honest, the degree to which you are minimizing the issues raised, here and below, does not do a lot to ease my concerns. You don't need to wield the ban hammer as an admin in order to actively disrupt a topic area through the consistent denigration of the ability of others to constructively contribute to an area, based on your subjective assessment of their abilities and suppositions about their bona fides and backgrounds. Which we are seeing a lot of evidence of here. Granted, some of those reports are stale. But others are not, and you have been here for far too long to plead ignorance as to the community's stance on such behaviour.

Now, I'm cognizant that I don't have direct editorial experience with you to contextualize the complaints, but even without that personal element, it has not escaped my notice that this is not your first time rubbing up against the threshold of community expectations regarding gatekeeping and a hostile disposition towards discussion during disputes, as evidence by previous reports at AE, here, and AN3. And even if we were to restrict our analysis to this report, there is pretty substantial documentation of some significantly problematic behaviour vis-a-vis, at a minimum, WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:STONEWALL, and possibly WP:CANVAS. That's quite a package to be hauling into talk space repeatedly, even if I take for granted your position that these are each, as a statistical matter, behaviours found only in a small fraction of your overall interactions. If nothing else, there is at least a recurrent pattern here of needlessly inflammatory tone during disputes and at least occasional proclivity to flood and dominate discussions.

And let me be clear about my motivation in commenting here: I would just as soon preserve your purported subject matter expertise (in areas for which, believe me, I recognize the need). That said, it cannot come at the cost of allowing you to continue to think that you can use that expertise (and/or high-volume, rhetorically aggressive strategies) as a cudgel in disputes, in the manner you apparently seem comfortable with right now. I'm taking the time to say this to you as someone uninvolved in the underlying disputes because I hope it will convince you of what this situation looks like to such a community member. It is very difficult to substantiate a "Yes, I occasionally do these things, but proportionally not very often" position, and even if you could, it would be, at best, a very imperfect approach to alleviating the particular concerns raised here. I think you would do better to consider acknowledging some of the issues and the need to adjust your approach. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you're seeing here are cherry-picked quotes, devoid of context, from a few aggrieved parties (and those they've found by digging through my edit history and pinging to summon here to pile on their anger) who are emphasizing and inflating how they feel they've been wronged while avoiding discussing their own actions. It's a one-sided approach intended to do something, anything, to keep me from, say, talking about sourcing, which we're all supposed to do.

For example, there's a diff from last year that the OP found from Mami Wata. While obscure outside of certain subcultural circles, this article is a constant target for scrubbing and ideological drive-by editing, and I've been instrumental and keeping the article from going back to just outright, blatant historical revisionism, and keeping it grounded in WP:RS. At one point I even rewrote the article to align with GA requirements. Cherry picking a diff from that process, totally devoid of context, is just axe-grinding. Just look at the edit history of that article and see what it was then and what it was now (and it's an interesting topic, you may find), and repeated attempts at scrubbing.

Now, the OP neglects to mention, for example, that they had totally misattributed a claim about the OED's etymology of bad and put it in the lead summary of the FA article, and this is the matter from which their apparently boiling bad blood stems. Nobody checked it, but I bothered to do so. As you can see there, eventually they admitted to not having access to the source at all (!), despite putting it in the article (and its introduction), but that bad blood has been there since. (I'd personally thank someone for correcting something I put in an article like that but that's just me.) Several editors took issue with the article's sourcing and this caused the OP to eventually make a featured article review but the editor has barely participated (link). There are a lot of examples like this and I am a stickler for sourcing (shouldn't we all be?), in part because I believe an article can always be improved.

It is super easy to go through someone's edit history, cherry pick and selectively edit handful of quotes and make them look as bad as possible here, while leaving stuff out that, say, shows where the fuel to trawl through another user editor's edit history from 2016 onward like this is coming from.

I'm lucky I wasn't gone for another week or two so that I could respond to these claims that so carefully selected to paint me as malicious as possible. To be clear, I cannot make anyone do anything here and I cannot magically make people with expertise in this or that area appear, but I think I can comment on the desire to have it when I am finding people inventing what linguistics sources say or avoiding complex etymologies crucial to an article on a historical linguistics topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have been mostly quietly watching this debacle for months, as it involves topics i'm interested in - i've written and deleted a lot of comments, because of how much of a time sink it'd be to get involved. i'd add here, regarding Bæddel/bædling, that numerous editors have taken issue with bloodofox's aggressive approach - SchroCat, UndercoverClassicist, Borsoka, Tim riley, AirshipJungleman29, among others (see these sections on the talk page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in particular). these editors haven't taken issue with the concept that an FA can be improved upon, especially by a subject-matter expert, they are pushing back on bloodofox's particular edits and their battering-ram attitude. bloodofox is simply not interested in listening to constructive criticism. i think this can be effectively contrasted with their interactions with ImaginesTigers at Talk:Odin, where bloodofox shuts down all of the suggested changes with more condescension and aspersions (1, 2, 3, etc.). at Bæddel/bædling they say nobody needs to ask for permission to add and correct WP:RS [...] A healthy, functional system would welcome improvements and additional sources to articles that make it to FA rather than discourage them. (link) that's true - ImaginesTigers did not need permission to improve the Odin article (which is not an FA) but they chose to discuss and propose changes on the talk page beforehand, only to be met with walls of text denigrating not only their work, but their competence. a pretty clear double standard, in my view. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 02:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am just reading the talk page as of right now and I have to say bloodofox comes off terribly. The entire talk page is:

1. bloodofox: "This page is terrible! It should never have passed FA! I'm going to totally rewrite it to get it into a usable state!"
2. Everyone else: "We don't know what you're talking about, your demands don't make sense in context, your attempts to rewrite everything are only making things worse, please stop and discuss"
3. bloodofox (ignoring them): "This page is terrible! It should never have passed FA! I'm going to totally rewrite it to get it into a usable state!"

(etc etc)

If someone were to propose a pageban for bloodofox at Bæddel and bædling I would not hesitate to support it. And if they do this regularly I'd probably support more sweeping sanctions too. Loki (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of several who have taken issue with sourcing on the page. In fact, there are several of us discussing a variety of issues with the page, especially its sources, right here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I was well aware of that FAR when I said what I said. What actually happened is that you had to be dragged to any kind of consensus forming mechanism other than either unilaterally rewriting the article or complaining about it, and then when that happened some other people agreed with you. But you don't get any credit for that, because it didn't happen because of anything you did.

That honestly just makes me think your previous behavior was even worse: if it was motivated by worries that a broader consensus might be even more clearly against you that's still bad but understandable. But instead, it was helpful for the position you were trying to argue, which means you were just being stubborn for no good reason.

This looks to me to be a classic case of WP:BRIE: whether or not what you say is right, if what you're actually doing about it is directly counterproductive to the goal you're trying to accomplish you're not actually improving the encyclopedia in any meaningful way. Loki (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might add the result of "Featured Article Review" to your summary above. And that's a pretty vicious response to a straightforward talk page discussion about sourcing between several people. Me initiating discussion led to the FAR, which I discovered after being gone a while. I'm now sure how it's "counterproductive" to find and discuss and ideally correct sourcing matters, especially on an FA. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having expert contributors like Bloodofox who are actually willing to put the work in and repeatedly correct errors added by uninformed editors is genuinely incredible. Bloodofox's sometimes forceful tone is unsurprising given what he's forced to put up with in order to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia while getting basically nothing in return. Other expert editors like Austronesier have spoken of their frustration of having to repeatedly deal with uninformed editors. [1] People who write bad work deserve to be forcefully criticised for it, no matter if it has gone through a flawed FAC process. Bloodofox really knows what he's talking about and it would be a great loss to the encyclopedia to lose him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather begging the question, don't you think? As has been well-established in this thread, most editors who've looked at this situation, including those with subject-matter expertise, think that there is no glaring issue with the article in question. Rather, Bloodofox has been insisting up and down that the whole article is biased because of activist editors and activist sources, and has decided it is beneath him to provide any evidence for these claims. Instead, we are apparently supposed to take his word for it that he knows better than everyone else who's analyzed the sources. I'm not sure what leads you to conclude that he is the one protecting Wikipedia from inaccuracies here, when the weight of opinions among participants in the content dispute suggests that he is in fact trying to remove well-sourced material. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin is completely right here, but even then, the whole premise of what Hemiauchenia says is wrong. No, editors who write "bad" content do not deserve to be treated uncivilly -- every expert editor started out as a novice one. On what he's forced to put up with in order to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia while getting basically nothing in return -- we're all volunteers; we all sign up to putting our work in and getting nothing, except warm fuzzy feelings, in return. We all come across work that we don't think is up to snuff, and editors that we don't think have the same expertise as we do. In those situations, we must be kind, civil, and collegial. That is policy and pillar: if an editor fails to abide by it, no amount of expertise is an excuse. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofox can be an irascible curmudgeon. He is also an editor of almost incalculable value to mythology and linguistics. That is an area that I often browse but dare not edit. It is gratifying to see someone as passionate as he is about accuracy and precision. Does he sometimes take things a little too personally? Sure. By the same token, some of his interlocutors could stand to take his objections for what they are, and not let themselves get wound up. We’re all here for the same purpose at the end of the day. Riposte97 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged at this discussion. I agree with Generalissima. Being frank, I'm involved in 2 disputes with bloodofox right now and both have been among the worst editing experiences of my time here. bloodofox is not interested, at all, in collaboration, unless you agree with them. The stuff about the FAR sucks but honestly, it wasn't my fight, so I was able to approach it with some distance and not get too wound up. But I have been working, since April, on a complete rewrite of Odin (see it at my sandbox). Since April I have left Talk updates concerning my approach and progress. It was completely silent until he turned up, within a week of our FAR exchange, to tell me how much it sucks. It doesn't suck: it removes excessive primary sourcing; provides actual, excellent scholarship. At every possible turn, they was condescending, rude, and uncivil. I tried to keep a cool head; you can decide whether I did: Talk:Odin#Update on proposal. I'll even poison the well against myself: they describe my responses as vindictive (diff, for what I don't know—I started work on this months before learning who they were); they tell me to "stop wasting time with this nonsense" (the nonsense is in question: doubling the references; 30+ explanatory footnotes acknowledging complexity; tens of hours of loving labour on a cool project that excited me).

• I believe the best summary I can provide of the goal-post moving, unwillingness to collaborative, and poor grasp of the material is my most recent response.
  • Edit: I’ll let others decide whether [latest response] actually responds to the demonstration of goalpost moving (see WP:Bring me a rock). Obviously I don’t think so but there’s no point in me responding.

They edited this later to "this defensive nonsense" (current), which is not better—how do you respond anything but defensively when someone is condescending to you with no idea what your qualifications are? Subtle hints of theirs—There are scholars on this site, although they prefer to remain anonymous—but hostile to even the idea that I might want feedback from an expert (there's nothing in my sandbox cited to "Scholar I Emailed"?). My plan was to take it to GA and then FAC, where it would obviously be reviewed thoroughly. Right now, they believe the current article has been revised and reviewed many times over, including my editors who are experts in this topic (diff; originally written as Again, everything here is air-tight, which I think is very defensive concerning a suggestion that content needs further improvement).

VeryRarelyStable pinged me with this message: @ImaginesTigers Welcome to the Norse mythology Wikipedia editing experience. (diff) when the discussion started. Not a great sign from the start.

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

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

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

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

First, the reason is involved in "two disputes" with me is because this editor has been following me around on a bunch of articles and injecting themselves in response to me into them, typically (but not always entirely) in disagreement (beyond Odin, where they probably first encountered me, there was recently Bæddel and bædling and now the Braucherei move discussion). Not sure exactly what that is about as I only vaguely recalled the user's name, but I'm suspecting Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, and we'd probably interacted before at some point in the past.

Anyway, rather than contribute to it, right now the user aims to replace our current Odin article with a draft they're writiong (although the current article has been reviewed, added to, and edited by many, many editors without any major issue). As the article has no apparent issues that an expansion can't fix, it's perplexing why this is.

And to be clear, I am just one of several authors of our Odin article. I pointed out a bunch of issues in the draft, some of them quite major, referred the editor to some crucial sources, and the reaction has been increasingly hostile. However, they were pinged by the OP to come here to pile on and so here we are reading a bunch of cherry-picked quotes. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, this stalking allegation only exists in your head and shows you can't AGF. I posted at Odin in April 2025; my first response to you was at the FAR was on 5 June 2025. It would be more compelling for me to argue that you followed me to Odin after our exchange at FAR (June 10), but it assumes extraordinary bad faith so I didn't make that argument.

These are unfalsifiable allegations. Obviously I can't prove I wasn't following you around and you can't prove the reverse, but I feel the timeline paints the opposite picture. Instead, my descriptions of your conduct evidence the things you said and how they made me feel; you haven't responded to any of those beyond trying to discredit me with allegations of stalking (above) and saying that This editor usually edits video game articles and things are a bit different (here). As highlighted by dozens of diffs by various participants, discrediting content positions by implying lack of qualification, or suggesting that you are uniquely qualified, is a frequent strategy for you.

• I'm relatively confident I discovered Talk:Bæddel and bædling because of my previous collaborations with UndercoverClassicist. I probably saw the discussion through their contributions and, intrigued by allegations of an "activist source" (Routledge) My first post there was providing a source to another editor on May 2025, who was questioning about the source you repeatedly cited as problematic, because they couldn't access it, for which they thanked me. We never interacted until the June FAR. Surely providing the source you are questioning is helpful to you! That you read bad faith into this—stalking and hounding!—does not reveal anything about me or support the extraordinary (probably indeffable) allegations you make here.
• I don't understand why you're raising my response at the move request—I disclosed that this ANI thread alerted me to its existence (diff). I don't understand how is different, for example, to an editor offering you support here at ANI and then making an appropriately disclosed post at Talk:Odin. Wikihounding is an attempt to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, but my move discussion vote basically agrees with you... You have a genuinely charmed conception of Wikihounding.

It is impossible for me to respond now with an assumption of good faith given the underlying faulty premise of my bad faith. It takes me ages to write a response but minutes for you to make baseless allegations (i.e., these editors are activists; this one's a canvasser; that one's unqualified; that one is both unqualified to edit and stalker) (cf. the diffs I have repeatedly cited). As was the case at Odin, I find it hard to see how engaging with you is productive. I believe the FAR shows a genuine good-faith effort by me to engage with participants, including positions that differ from mine (e.g., here, where I was essentially advocating for your position (!) out of frustration that the debate was going on at FAR (wrong venue) and your unproductive manner of collaboration/consensus gathering. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been mentioned, I can attest to similar behaviour from bloodofox on mythology / folklore related articles on several occasions; especially on Norse mythology articles, but also, and earlier, this discussion and the following discussion at Talk:Phoenix (mythology) in 2019. Remarks from bloodofox in those discussions include:

• Unfortunately, as is all too often the case on the project, this has evidently awoken a revert-warrior watcher (in this case VeryRarelyStable), emerging from their slumber only to push aside core guidelines like WP:PROVEIT to aggressively reinsert all the accrued misinformation, misattributed material, and otherwise entirely unreferenced material...

(Of note: bloodofox didn't just mention me here or use my username; they pinged me, to make sure I would see this comment.)

• Where are these users when the nonsense is inserted on to the article in the first place, I wonder?
• Did you read the Bennu section? Do you understand how the Bennu is so closely connected to the Greek concept of the Phoenix? How new are you to this subject? Are you familiar with the concept of the analogue in folklore studies, and what that means, exactly? Do you understand the crucial distinction between describing something as observed and not flatly stating it as fact, and why someone would do that? If not, please brush up on these topics before responding further, as otherwise you're wasting my time and yours.
• It seems that you've chosen to get into a dispute about the content of this article without being particularly familiar with the topic itself—why would you think that was a good idea?
• [quotes a side remark of mine] has to be one of the funniest unintentionally humorous quotes I've read on English Wikipedia over the past decade or so, I'll give you that.
• If you've scratched your edit-warring itch, I'll go ahead and start correcting the article. Otherwise we're going to need to elevate this, as I'm not keen on letting this article deteriorate into a bunch of ill-considered nonsense, and my Wikipedia time is limited—I'd rather not spend it explaining fundamentals to edit warriors.
• If you want to contribute to this article, start by finding a copy of the Van der Broek book used throughout this article. In the mean time, you're wasting your time — and mine.
• ...please kindly take a break and return when you're calm.

This should go without saying, but in case it doesn't: I'm not quoting these to relitigate the content dispute from six years ago, but to confirm others' observations of the level of incivility and discourtesy to which disputes with bloodofox can descend. I will admit I did not respond with perfect patience.

My disagreements with bloodofox at the Norse mythology articles, much like ImaginesTigers', have centred chiefly on the issue of how to communicate effectively to Wikipedia's non-scholarly readership. As they stand, all these articles remind me of a molecular biologist I once met, who was tasked with teaching second-year dental students some molecular biology. Rather than simplify his subject, he threw postgraduate-level concepts at them for fifty minutes at a stretch and looked wearied beyond endurance when they struggled to follow. I gather he was in fact a world-leading researcher in his field, but his lecturing method did nothing to convey his knowledge to his students. All he did was baffle them.

This is precisely why Wikipedia needs non-expert contributions as well as expert. Experts are closely familiar with their own subject matter, but that very familiarity blinds them to how unfamiliar that subject matter is to wider audiences. That is why I cannot countenance bloodofox's habitual insinuations that only experts in these subjects should be suffered to edit them.

—VeryRarelyStable 05:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you've been nursing this grudge since 2019? Back when you were doing spiteful stuff like this? You were indeed edit-warring and inserting stuff like this into the article, and the article is better because you ran into resistance and source quality pushback. I encourage editors to look at the whole discussion for context. This is another editor pinged from my edit history from the past decade eager to come and grind an axe (the whole paragraph was cited to Van der Broek's 1972 overview, btw). :bloodofox: (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have too much to add here, but am in broad agreement with the points made by Generalissima, and with those made by ImaginesTigers and the summary offered by Sawyer777. I do think it's worth bringing up a repeated issue with asserting bold claims -- for instance, that an article's sourcing is terrible and (to quote above) "falsified", providing little or no evidence for them, and not engaging with discussion that suggests these concerns are (at best) rather overblown. Something strange seems to have happened on the Baedling FAR which means that I can't pull the diff, but see my comments there about Julius Zupitza -- this whole sourcing thing has hinged on a fairly tiny "error", which is no longer part of the article text, and Bloodofox has offered no evidence to substantiate the rather forceful accusations of sloppiness, dishonesty and so on that have followed. Similarly, they have refused to engage with several editors pointing them to appropriate means of addressing their concerns and getting consensus for the changes they want, while also complaining that nobody will allow them to do that. It's hard to see this all as good-faith behaviour, and even harder to see it as a net positive for the encyclopaedia. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we ended up in Featured Article Review, and the discussion there has continued, which is where you were pinged from. The "tiny error" was a total misattribution of a source on an FA that made no mention of a scholar, which the OP eventually admitted they didn't have access to. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That linked page makes interesting reading -- once again, you have various editors advising you to discuss things in the appropriate forum, build consensus for proposed changes, and avoid making disputes personal. Even if you think you're right in the points of fact, that would certainly prompt me to think about the way I approach these things, especially given that it's the third or fourth page where different people are telling you exactly the same thing, and indeed now that we're at ANI. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to FAR is in my opinion progress (which the OP initiated before going to ANI). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• All I can say as someone who participates in move review on a frequent basis that the section at Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten was completely unacceptable, especially considering move review was suggested very early on in the discussion. Closers sometimes get things wrong, and we have procedures to look at whether they are wrong - belittling a closer for their move is very serious indeed. Please note I have no other interaction with this user that I am immediately aware of. SportingFlyer T·C 07:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having just read through Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten, all I can say about the approach is 'wow...'. Staggering. Pinging Paine_Ellsworth as being the target for some of the rather unpleasant barbs thrown in that thread. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly, while you've to date contributed nothing whatsoever to this or related articles, I will say you're probably one fo the single most condescending editors I've encountered on the site (and that's saying something). is pretty staggering, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did find the editor to be extremely condescending and the editor did not contribute to the article, which I had just rewritten. As we see on this talk page, it's fine to tell an editor you find them condesending. I requested to know exactly what this editor's reasoning was for closing the vote and was met with, for example, sarcasm ("fine actually!"). Another editor recommended a move review, which I then initiated. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Concerning As we see on this talk page, it's fine to tell an editor you find them condesending. I disagree very strongly. At FAR, myself and others repeatedly requested you to stop bringing up conduct concerns outside of the appropriate venue (i.e., ANI) because it was a distraction and a waste of other's times—"I deserve to be mad because I once got a death threat" is obviously not a good discussion of content with reference to the FA criteria (the same stuff we see with Liz in this thread). Others did the same. You were rude and condescending (despite having the academic background you seem desperate to collaborate with), to I replied that you should explore that at ANI and not FAR. You ignored my request, and the request of a coordinator, and did it again (this is textbook bludgeoning).

      You are either desperate to fight with others or can't help it. You repeatedly make reference to people as battlegrounders and then become inordinately mad when someone kindly disagrees (which, as we see here, is often). I even noted that your response strangely quoted my response to you but you responded, in line, to the comment about Essjay that I didn't repeat because you got so mad over something so minor.

      It's a persistent notion, unique to you, that everyonen who disagrees with you is out to get you, as Tim riley said: This looks like a case of "Everybody's out of step except our Willie". I have reread the article and the FAC exchanges and see no reason to attempt to rewrite the text to accommodate the uncited assertions of one hitherto uninvolved editor (here). There is much more demonstrated interest from you overpowering others' views than gathering any sort of consensus. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I would, BTW, recommend anyone diving into this mess to read Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten in its entirety. I was actually surprised at what an unpleasant read it was - and I'm 1,000% uninvolved - couldn't give a hootin' toot about the subject matter or the close. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      The ensuring move review also fits the same pattern -- lots of uninvolved editors saying that, regardless of the facts of the case, Bloodofox's conduct was out of order. To me, it's becoming clear that social pressure and gentle persuasion are not proving enough for them to see this and make changes: I think the reply below to SnowRise is encouraging, but if their entire takeaway from this thing is "I need to stop asking people about their qualifications", they have missed the vast majority of the point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I'll also point out that about an hour after they made that reply to SnowRise, they ended up defending the exact thing they'd just owned up to. not really sure what to make of that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • To editor SchroCat: thank you so much for the ping! Over years of closing discussions I've developed a pretty tough hide, so :bloodofox:'s comments, seemingly contrary to civility concerns, had no effect on me. We see here that such has come back to bite them unsurprisingly. I will only say that none of us know what has been going on behind the scenes over past weeks with our fellow editors, which should make AGFing a bit easier for us. I wish every editor here, to include :bloodofox:, a high-quality life and better and better times! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) I also have little to add to this, except to say that Bloodofox was—regardless of the rights or wrongs of his opinions on the Bæddel matter—overly aggressive and unpleasant to deal with. I had no history with the article or its FAC progress, but did see the threads on the talk page. When Bloodofox suggested the article should list all the uses of the word in Old English, I pointed out that this would be against WP:INDISCRIMINATE Bloodofox's second response was to ask "Are you new to this kind of topic?", which is inappropriate when dealing with how content should be handled on WP, regardless of the topic. The aggressive responses included misleading comments, outright lies and the toxic approach of trying to bully people away from a subject by asking "To clarify your understanding of this material, what is your background in linguistics?" I had expressed no opinion on any of the substantive matters being discussed on the page, simply on whether having a list of uses of the word in English would be encyclopaedic unless it was accompanied by sufficient text to provide context that made the approach encyclopaedic. For trying to ensure the article kept within the bounds of what we would consider high-quality content, I was met with BATTLEGROUND reactions and a toxic approach that was repeated across several threads of the talk page towards several other editors. Anyone who didn't fall in line with Bloodofox's "suggestions" was attacked, which is completely inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is fine to ask if someone is new to something and if they've got a background in the article's topic so that we can talk about sourcing. Now, you may take issue with my comments and criticisms all you like, but please don't falsely accuse me of lying. It is indeed true that these sources had not been checked before the article was passed through FA and that one of those sources was a major linguistics source on a linguistics article. I know not only because I personally began checking them but also because the OP and primary author eventually admitted that they never even had access to it in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodofox (talk • contribs) 08:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given your toxic approach to discussions, I have no wish to have any further interaction with you, but I stand by what I have said and will repeat that when someone is pointing to the MOS about how inappropriate it would be to have an list of words without context, it's not a question of background in the topic, but how to best present what the sources say within the confines of the encyclopaedic approach outlined in the MOS. I am sorry that you are still unable to understand this, but I really do not wish to continue any discussion with you. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Accusing someone of lying is Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. This is the second time I have experienced this editor make a bunch of accusations and then declare they will have no further discussion. But to be clear, nobody was proposing that we just list a bunch of words (??), rather it'd ideally be a typical paragraph with appropriate sourcing and discussion from relevant WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been briefly involved in Baeddel and Baedling. I get the sense that Bloodofox is probably right - but the amount of text means I would have to spend a considerable time just to understand the discussions, let alone do significant reading. In these types of situation it's really important to find an approach that allows all editors to engage. I think it unfortunate that this article is such a bone of contention, the subject "Alternative Sexualities in Early English Society" can't hang off the evidence from these two words, like reconstructing a dinosaur from one tooth. I hope that the article can be brought to a better state, but there will need to be a different, and less combative, approach. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

I also sometimes (rather foolishly) work in hot-button topics, and rarely I'll get anonymous threats or, worse yet, editors very rarely will get so angry they try to stalk and harm me offline (like these two who attempted to get some random person totally unrelated to me fired from their job. And all because I added secondary sources to Wikipedia discussing the academic Carl Raschke's involvement in the Satanic Panic).

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

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

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

In short, these are all content disputes. Rather than just working on the articles and sorting out whatever issue is being raised, these editors have invested a lot of time and effort going through my edit history to dig out quotes, often leaving out context (like the fact the Baucherei, an article I wrote, is in move review and that I was commenting on another editor's canvassing — a situation that involves none of these editors and has resulted in an ongoing move review). I suggest instead focusing on improving content in dispute rather than cherry picking a bunch of quotes and trying to drag anyone I ended up having a disagreement with over the past who knows how many years here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bloodofox, since you have decades of experience, what is a way to keep content disputes from becoming personal? How can we critique content and sources without editors, themselves, feeling criticized? It's a cliche but how can we keep this about content and not our contributors? Since this is a recurring problem that comes up on ANI all of the time, any ideas that any editor has would be welcome here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it's especially a tough one when editors outright invent sources, I discover it, and then they don't want to talk about sourcing (like the OP) or demonstrate a lack of familiarity with a topic but insist they're doing it their way (happens).

Honestly, the best answer to: "Are you new to this topic?" Is just yes or no, because then we can work with that. If someone asked me if I were new or unfamiliar with something, I'd honestly answer it because why not? We're ideally both working on an article and sharing sources.

To be clear, I know nothing about these people, and given my disturbing experiences here with people actively trying to harm me "IRL" for daring to add fully BLP-compliant WP:RS about them, I very strongly encourage - outright urge - people to not tell anyone who they are or provide any kind of specifics about their background beyond being extremely vague. However, it can be useful to just say, hey, I know this topic super well and I recommend this, or hey, I could use some more resources on this topic because I feel I could get a firmer grounding, so what do you have?

None of it is personal. When people are clear where they're at and it's a topic I do know, I can get them sources, but if not, it is just an obstacle course where we're on the talk page for too long and for no good reason. Typically the article benefits from the heightened source scrutiny but some editors outright take it personally and can carry a grudge for quite a long time (meanwhile, having been here so long and focused so intensely on the articles, I have often forgotten their user names). :bloodofox: (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't know about any threats that have come your way. I've had my share of abuse over the years and threats but it's the cliche, comical internet variety where it seems like the other person is 12 years old and is getting their phone taken away and just screaming at you. Nothing that caused me to feel like I'm actually in personal danger. If it did, it would color my experience here. But back to editing. I don't wonder a lot if people are telling me the truth, call me naive but I take folks at their word and generally it works out. Plus, I don't like living my life as a cynical person, it makes the experience of being an editor on Wikipedia less enjoyable and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Tomorrow is another day, more pages to review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC

Yes, it probably impacts me more than I realize. Check out the Raschke stuff above as an example, and compare it to the talk page, if you find it interesting. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two things here, BOO:

1) It doesn't seem from the diffs presented that you are so much asking the question about their familiarity so much as speculating wildly about it, based on your assessment of their apparent facility with the given subject. Now, there may be some selection bias in the diffs presented here in that respect, but even if we take the leap and presume there is, you're still making bold, un-sought-after, and unflattering guesswork assessments on some occasions.

And 2) even if you were asking the question consistently, it is likely to be perceived by most of your fellow editors as a territorial and tedious behaviour. These are the types of questions that most editors learn to avoid long before 20 years. No answer to that question directly influences any editorial decision that is going to be made, so it is likely to be ascribed to being a cheap rhetorical ploy to undermine another editor's standing. Let's also AGF and give you the benefit of the doubt that this is always all about you just trying to get a bearing on your fellow editors, despite it happening in the context of existing disputes. Even if we grant you that presumption, I can tell you it certainly is not coming off that way, especially the way you seem to time and word them.

And I am telling you this as an uninvolved party looking at these instances dispassionately after the fact; to those people who are actually interacting with you in these instances, those same comments certainly can't look any less like a challenge to the legitimacy of the ability to contribute of other parties who have offered positions contrary to your own. If I am perfectly honest, Ox, these comments look like nothing quite so much as an invitation to a keyboard warrior dick measuring contest in what should be a no-dick zone--and an effort to argue from authority.

So maybe just shelve this habit, especially as a threshold way of entering into dispute resolution. You don't need to know about their backgrounds, much less guess at them. You don't have the prerogative to be assured as to their level of expertise. You should be assessing their arguments, same as you would advance your own: on the merits of the strength of the arguments, based on policy, sourcing, and pragmatics. Please leave all of this extraneous assessment out of it. Aside from the fact that it focuses on the wrong things and makes you look a lot more petty than you apparently realize, if we take your protestations for granted, there are lots of reasons why various editors do not like to get into personal disclosures of even the vague sort on project. As someone who keeps citing off-project harassment as a reason we should consider this situation a comparatively trivial matter, I would think you would have more robust respect for these. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I appreciate the measured and uninvolved feedback from you here. I'll do that. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I appreciate the observation being taken in the spirit it was intended. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Usually, I'd be shocked if an ANI subject, in response to a thread outlining their history of condescension, belitting and aspersions, said This editor usually edits video game articles, but I'm not. You literally can't stop condescending. (At least at ANI I can defend myself rather than wasting others' time with it at FAR, as I had to remind you twice there: I have produced 1 video game FA, as my first experiment in editing, about 5 years ago; my latest FA was Dracula. My degrees—in fact no one's degrees—are any of your business for very good reason Attacking an editor's hobbies is a bizarre line of defence.)

• You say this is a content dispute, but the content dispute is in the place it belongs—a Talk page—and as it is a dispute I obviously reject your characterisation. The extraordinary focus on the content disputes here conveniently avoids the concerns regarding your unique style of collaboration. The closest thing to an acknowledgement of your conduct problems (cf. every diff above) subtly shifts blame away from you and onto hot-button topics. It isn't the topics that are hot-button, bloodofox. Your responses everywhere here are WP:IDHT. Your arguments at FAR are WP:IDLI.
• Your example of work at Braucherei is an illuminating one, I think, because 1) you edited it alone and 2) the moment Paine expressed gratitude, you attacked them (first diffs) and later drew ire from multiple participants. SnowFire, who agreed with your content position (!), said of your conduct: I would suggest that a respectful challenge on grounds of no consensus for the new title would be far more likely to succeed than a dramatic, assume-bad-faith, denunciation of the closer (diff); another wrote we don’t need to assume bad faith or anything underhanded. There are procedures for appealing. Follow them. We don’t need to get nasty (diff). This doesn't cover the individuals accusing you of bludgeoning and casting aspersions there, too. Your comments that Netherzone and others are activists are reminiscent of the AE warning you received. In what way is this a good example of positive collaboration? It proves the opposite: fine when allowed free reign; terrible the moment another editor is involved.

• IMO, the unwillingness to use Wikipedia's processes (i.e., SnowFire and Pain's suggestions above) is a major problem here of wasting editor's time with disputes you don't want to move forward unless it is your way (cf. this comment from AirshipJungleman29). At FAR, I spent time outlining appropriate dispute resolution methods for 5 possible complaints in 2 posts (e.g., here; please CTRL+F "RFC" or "DRN" or "RSN" on that page); as did UndercoverClassicist (diff). You ignored these, instead arguing and accusing others of blockading you. (I even tried to advocate for your position with another editor to try and move things forward.) You obstructed the resolution of your own dispute...

• You called my responses "vindictive" at Talk:Odin and, at FAR, told me I wrote a response aimed at critiquing me personally because I gently indicated the problems I'd worry about if I brandished my credentials within Wikipedia (i.e., the Essjay comment you described as an attack and asked me to strike and refactor. I didn't strike or refactor them; I stand by them. I have done nothing but demonstrate civility in trying to understand your concerns. I wouldn't be drawn into a conversation about editorial conduct at FAR because it would waste others' time. Now, we're now at the appropriate venue for you to apologise or defend your statements. Your conduct at FAR towards me is obviously unrelated to Odin because you did most of this before replying to Odin.

Incidentally, I want to be really clear: you did not initiate the FAR despite the suggestion to the contrary (It is now at FAR); the nominator of this thread did, in my view with immense dignity, given your bludgeoning of the Talk... that gathered no consensus for a single change after a discussion with >11 participants (!). (Regarding the OED correction: it was, as others noted, a tiny issue that you overblew, as others noted, to make a wider point. You then kept going on about it well after the edition was fixed... because it's not about the content.) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside. The allegations above about canvassing (here) are useful indicators of your style of collaboration, and sit within a broader pattern of bad behaviour in my opinion. As I said in my initial post: bloodofox is not interested, at all, in collaboration, unless you agree with them. You frequently ping editors who will support you here at Talk:Bæddel and bædling. Your post to RSN obviously poisoning the well (diff), which you were repeatedly called out for. It is hard for me to see this edit to Talk:Odin as anything but the same attempt at disrupting consensus gathering through discussion and dispute resolution. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I have a background with Norse mythology. It's one of those things you can't help but stumble across if you're an art critic with interests in both fantasy literature and political extremism who was raised by an anthropology professor. I will not be commenting about articles brought up here outside of those. But after reviewing the links provided what I will say is that :bloodofox: is effectively entirely correct regarding the literature at the articles in this set. I've also participated in edit discussions with :bloodofox: going years back with regard to articles about Norse mythology and about cryptids and what I've observed is that they have had a consistently sharp tongue. I'm sympathetic to the WP:CIV complaints and I do think it would be wise of :bloodofox: to take that feedback under advisement, to improve their adherence to WP:FOC and to avoid insulting other editors. However I think that there's a fair bit of over-egging of the problem here. While it's true that, on Wikipedia, being right isn't sufficient, I'd argue that being politely wrong is also insufficient. For an expert in the material, issues like treating the prose edda and the poetic edda as if they were the same work is such an elementary mistake that I can certainly also sympathize with :bloodofox:'s frustration in these circumstances. Wikipedia does not demand that editors be experts in their field to participate but, on the other foot, it should probably avoid chasing away experts just because they have sharp tongues. I would suggest an appropriate closure here would be a logged warning to adhere to WP:CIV and no more. A tban would be inappropriate because :bloodofox: contributes valuably in this set. A block would also be overkill. I would say that no boomerangs should also come out of these threads. We're supposed to be polite to each other here and raising civility complaints should not be actionable disruption. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And on another foot, if this were a three-legged race, Wikipedia should probably avoid chasing away us regular folk, because of an expert with a sharp tongue, which appears is what has been happening. 2¢ to spare by Isaidnoway (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the "spin" we put on things... is it just a bit of a "sharp tongue", which some editors might see as "tough love"? or is it blatant breakage of WP:5P4, one of WP's 5 pillars? Stay with this reference work long enough and you'll see the entire spectrum between those two extremes. I look forward to reading the closer's statement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself said you had a thick skin, which you clearly needed in your encounter. Sharp tongue or overbearing rudeness, bludgeoning and intellectual bullying? That's not meant as a WP:PA, it's the issue at the heart of all of this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think, for me, what it comes down to is that sanctions are not supposed to be punitive but rather preventative. Do we think that :bloodofox:'s uncivility is sufficiently disruptive to require prevention? Based on the above discussion my tendency is to say no. Which is why I prefer a logged warning here. I've edited in articles they're active in long enough to recognize they don't always uphold WP:5P4 the best- but they have been a critical asset to the maintenance of WP:5P1 and WP:5P2. A logged warning would send the message to :bloodofox: that they need to make a change with regard to how they handle WP:CIV without risking losing the clear value they bring to the project. This is, in my opinion, an appropriate response because it acknowledges the problem and takes a step to prevent it from reoccurring without dipping into punishment. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I favor the same approach as you Simon, though I do think we need to be careful in how we frame it if we realistically want the result to be a change in approach without the need for a sharper sanction. Personally, while I sympathize with the concerns of the impacted parties here, including the sense that there has been some WP:IDHT/equivocating/rationalizing going on from :boo: in this discussion, I don't think a TBAN or CBAN block is appropriate at this point. But this is primarily because I feel that in cases where the community has been dilatory in making a firm statement of disapproval of such conduct to a specific editor in specific circumstances, it is problematic to come at them all at once with the forestalled implications of the previous subpar behaviour that they were not previously adequately warned about in a discussion like this, involving people other than whom they were in dispute with. But the reason I favour a warning is not because I think :boo:'s conduct has never met the threshold of being significantly disruptive: it looks to me like it clearly has done so, at times.

Regardless, there's a real danger here in not being plain spoken with :boo: about the shortfall between their conduct and community expectations. Editors with their particular pattern of interaction and self-justification are already battling against an internal image which convinces them that they are simply "brusque, in a no-nonsense, cut-through-the-bull manner" and only fall afoul of community ire because they are "all too wiling to call a spade for a spade". And they will typically seize upon the least bit of community indulgence of such perspectives as a matter of confirmation bias, no matter how slight that support is, relative to community complaints.

There's already been a small bit of this in this thread, including in your second-to-last post, and good-faith and honest though I know those observations to be, I do not believe they are what :boo: needs to be hearing right now, if we want to maximize the potential for a logged warning to be sufficient and avoid their being back here for a more substantial sanction in the future, after a lot more unnecessary incivil commentary borne by other editors rubbing shoulders with them in talk space. The overhaul in :boo:'s approach needs to be substantial to avoid that outcome, and they need to internalize that this project is a workspace--a volunteer workspace, yes, but a workspace all the same--and that casual belittling of their colleagues' perspetives is just not acceptable, no matter what they believe the benefits to the project of their unfiltered commentary would be. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I do see indications above that :boo: is able and willing to make these adjustments. The fact that they continue to be defensive about their past conduct does not necessarily mean that they are burying their head in the sand. We all create for ourselves narratives about our past actions, so even when someone concedes that they should be doing something differently, it can be another matter entirely to agree to someone else's interpretation of past actions. Afterall, they will reasonably feel that they are the only one who has direct access to memories about their past mental state. That's just human nature, and I would ask that the people here complaining about :boo:'s past behaviour keep that in mind. But for those of us who have not had conflicts with :boo:, whom they may be more willing to hear an assessment from, I think we should be presenting a common front to the extent that we agree a change is in order, and not appear to give the impression that we are saying "change your approach, please.....unless you are really, really sure you are in the right and the other parties are being goobers." SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's fair. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding just a little on "yeah that's fair" I do think a logged warning is important because it says "next time this happens we'll know you have been warned". I don't think incivility is appropriate and it is often counter-productive because "this edit is wrong" is a lot less of a blow than "you are a moron," and usually leads to less entrenchment. However I've been doing a lot of thinking about how Wikipedia handles situations of conflict and am increasingly of the opinion we are being too hasty with blocks.

There are exceptions of course: bigotry, sock puppetry, vandalism and unrepentant disruption are things that are inimical to this project. But, for smaller issues, (especially editors who are good at what they do but are also rude, editors who are productive in most areas but have sore points where they struggle to collaborate and editors who make mistakes early on but are open to advice on correcting those mistakes) I think logged warnings, topic bans and page blocks should be used (basically in that ascending order, as relevant) should be attempted before pulling out the big guns. Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I go back and forth on the question of how we handle blocks in community discussions. Honestly, I'm not sure I've ever settled on whether we over- or under-applying them, because the situation can be so idiosyncratic, especially here at ANI: one user who should have been put into cool down much earlier can go years evading serious penalties for chronic personal attacks and disruption, and another can get nailed with a sanction for blowing their lid once in a stressful scenario. Nor is it as simple as the more established editors being the ones to avoid action: that is a factor at times, but that's an oversimplification. A lot of it just happens to do with who is around for the discussion and what has recently been going on in the community. All of which is a long-winded way of saying, I agree with you: short of shackling ourselves to an inflexible set response, we should have a general escalating approach, and logged warnings are a reasonable starting place. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To briefly interject: the reason I suggested a page block above is because I think hyper-narrow blocks like that can function as essentially a warning while also concretely solving the problematic behavior in the short term.

If the issue right now is bloodofox's behavior on one specific page then blocking them from that page both fixes the immediate problem and signals to bloodofox that there is a problem with their behavior while not really impacting their editing much in the bigger picture. I'm worried that a pure warning is unlikely to solve the issue at that page, because that particular bridge has already been burned and everyone there now has strong opinions not just about the underlying dispute but about each other. Loki (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable position too. For my part, I'm not sure I am satisfied that it is necessary in the sense of WP:PREVENTATIVE. I'm by no means saying I can't see why others might feel otherwise, but there are times where my gut says 'give them the opportunity to try". It's true that tailored subject matter bans can redirect and preserve the useful contributions of a user who has shown a lack of restraint in particular circumstances. But I'm not sure it very often succeeds in helping a user to evolve past previous issues, which is a much more desirable outcome, imo. By which I mean not that they agree to obey community standards in some respect, but that they are won over to the reasoning behind them.

I just think that a user like that is going to be more enthused for their work, and more at peace with their fellow volunteers than one that is being kept in line via restrictions and threat of further restrictions. For those reasons, if I see even just a small handful of concessions and a glimmer of effort to adjust, that's usually enough to move me to WP:ROPE territory, especially if we're talking about something like a first focused ANI thread. There's a lot of people here presenting very similar stories, a non-trivial proportion of whom have said some variation of "one of the most dispiriting experiences I have had on the project", so I'm not going to pretend I don't see why some are calling for concrete measures. And more to the point, I hope Ox is hearing that. But for all of that my inclination is towards giving them a chance to make the necessary adjustments without forcing the issue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the problems with the behaviour cover more than one page, I think a targeted block from the page means ROPE is still very much 'in play' for every other nexus of dispute, while stopping one of the (current and active) problems. It seems to be an ideal middle ground that solves an immediate problem and acts as a warning for the future (as well as starts the clock on the possibly-increasing length and breadth of blocks for any future problematic behaviour. At both the Bæddel and Braucherei pages, their approach and behaviour has been beyond the pale, but we have the opportunity to stop one of those right now with a firm warning in the shape of a page block. Generalissima is right when they say "but I was right" has never been a defence. - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: I won't weigh in on what sanctions are appropriate but I will offer my perspective my editorial concerns, with examples from bæddel and bædling. My concerns go beyond that page, though.

• There's persistent hostility, or simply ignorance, towards dispute resolution and substantive discussion. That prolongs bitter fights, which are only bitter on his part... and in any instance where the other party did lose their cool, he benefits from assumed higher credibility. Editors have exercised extraordinary patience and maintained a focus on content and sources, while he has never once proposed a change for discussion or offered meaningful rebuttal sources (in my view he believes he shouldn't need to)—this goes beyond just making an argument from authority into outright dangerous territory.
• See this Talk post: Is there a reason this article doesn't even mention the matter of toponyms? I added this material only for it to be mass reverted [...] Anyone with the slightest familiarity with this topic will encounter discussion of this important matter and yet it is not here (diff). He's referring to his addition of a dictionary listing when he knows the onus for inclusion is on him—i.e., if it's important, it'd be trivially easy to provide a source supporting that. We know he knows this because on his User talk we see his request for some WP:RS to add outlining any activist history related to the words, that sounds very interesting (diff) for his other argument. Consider his edit summary that states the vast amount of discussion on this topic comes from linguists discussing this word in connection with the word "bad" (diff). In my view he's interpreting what is important to scholarship based on the existence of some scholarship, and seeks to frame articles around that without providing sources to that effect, on an obviously contentious topic. This makes the subtle claims of expertise even more dangerous because it forms part of the argument for inclusion.

No editor’s contributions are so strong that they’re worth scaring off eager collaborators. Why change that behaviour when it’s obviously effective in driving people like me away from an area that can benefit from more people? While his feedback is fundamentally hostile and unactionable, his voice is simply too big—not just because he summons folks predisposed to agreeing with him but, again, the hostile approach to consensus gathering and the subtle indications of expertise). Not to mention my goalpost moving concerns. He leverages subtly implied expertise, condescension and disparagement over meaningful collaboration and engagement precisely to exhaust others and drive them away. He got what he wanted in that respect – I'll stay away from all Norse/Germanic religion content.

Finally I can't support that there's any contrition here given his ABF and unevidenced allegations that I am stalking and hounding him; these were straightforwardly contradicted but obviously at great cost to my time. I think discrediting is a persistent content dispute strategy for him, as we see at the Move request (e.g., citing WP:RGW 22 times and calling editors activist canvassers). It's reminiscent to the reason he got AE warned for guessing people's religions IMO (assuming bad faith). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, their defensiveness and the tendency for people to try and wave away personal attacks makes me very cynical that there will be a change in behavior without something being done. bloodofox has been here almost as long as the site has, people have brought up this behavior before, they know exactly the courtesy expected of editors: defending personal attacks with "but I was right about that!" is not acceptable, it has never been acceptable, and is honestly a more telling indicator about their approach than the insults themselves. ` Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your positions are not unreasonable, but here's the issue with getting a satisfactory result here, as I see it: a TBAN is going to be very difficult to secure, because while some of the behaviour is linked to specific topics, I think we can agree the issue is more with approach to conflict than anything. The questioning of peoples expertise is more pronounced in areas where :boo: feels they have more expertise, but they have already committed to stopping that, and I think they should be given the opportunity to prove good on their word as to that. That leaves a block or a full CBAN. A standard block would not be appropriate here as there is not presently ongoing behaviour needing stopping, and a CBAN is an absolute last stop for worst case scenarios.

I appreciate that a lack of serious sanction can feel unsatisfying for complainants here, with as many converging statements as there have been. But a firm warning is not nothing. One of our estimable colleagues recently closed a controversial thread here at ANI noting that despite no action, the party most complained about should consider that community eyes will be on them moving forward. I recall thinking at the time that their observation is actually valid for many threads here. There's a conventional (though not universally accepted) wisdom in the world of criminal law that a mistrial leaves the defendant in a slightly improved position for a subsequent trial. I think the opposite is typically true in this world: the community does not like seeing the same names pop up in connection with the same issues over and over.

Given the weight of the concerns raised here on the first bite of the apple, :boo: would be well advised to perceive themselves on thin ice and should contemplate that if they come back here as a consequences of their own intractability, it probably will be broad TBAN or CBAN time. Or they could still very well talk themselves into it in this thread, though I think that is unlikely. Regardless, for the moment, I am in favor of WP:ROPE. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't strictly apply here, but I'll note that WP:ROPE includes, under "when not to use", If the user was justifiably blocked but is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong. Clearly, BOO hasn't been blocked, but equally I think the main part of the sentence is very close to the current situation. Equally, while this may be a first rodeo at ANI (though I haven't checked that), this is clearly a long-term pattern of behaviour where previous admonishments have had no effect. It may be different to have one that comes with a more official stamp, of course, but all of this makes me sceptical that a stern warning alone will be successful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but I'll note that if we put too much of weight on a failure to acknowledge being in the wrong, we'd have to start blocking a lot more than we already do. But hey, I'm honestly not looking to go to the mat on this: I already had some blunt words for :boo: myself above, and I certainly don't feel justified in dismissing the concerns of those who have been in the trenches with them during the cited disputes. I can only say what my own instinct is with regard to which ameliorative approach feels like it has the best cost-benefit promise, given where we are now. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read through the Talk page of Bæddel and bædling, the FACR, and the AfD discussion of Sumarr and Vetr. Bloodofox needs to stop commentting on other editors in discussions about content. Countless comments of theirs on those three pages are completely inappropriate. The AfD is a clear example of why being right isn't enough. The article was kept, but that does not justify the long string of personal attacks they made, at times even going out of their way to add them retroactively [2].

Their claim, made today in this discussion, that "In fact, the editor had not read the article and was not familiar with the material" is yet another personal attack. I do not understand why Bloodofox would go out of their way to repeat a personal attack here, while simultaneously implying that the many incidents raised here are too old to be relevant ("Spending all that time trawling through my many thousands of edits all the way back to 2016", "...the AfD 2024. I had completely forgotten about it, but I guess this is a fishing trip"). Clearly their behavior has not changed, despite them downplaying their previous incivility. I hope an uninvolved admin will consider applying escalating blocks for continued personal attacks per the NPA policy, starting with the one made today.

The behavior at other venues, especially Talk:Bæddel and bædling and the FACR looks like BATTLEGROUND behavior. They seem to frequently comment on other editors (ad hominem) when discussing content issues and refuse to follow WP:BRD, instead accusing other editors of edit-warring [3][4][5][6]. But this is frankly secondary to the repeated insults they continue to lob around, including in this very discussion, which must stop. Toadspike [Talk] 18:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• My only encounter with this user was at the move request for Braucherei which was frustrating to say the least. I actually considered bringing it to ANI at the time, but decided not to as the discussion seemed to be fizzling out and I'd hoped it was a one-off. I see now that this is a pattern. In my mind there are a few issues here. Being right isn't enough has already been mentioned. There's also been some mention of the discussion with Paine on Braucherei. which was a complete failure to WP:AGF. They never even asked why Paine chose Braucherei out of the four options listed, and assumed that Paine decided the activist, WP:CANVAS votes overruled everyone all else[7].
  Another issue is WP:ASPERSIONS. To quote, in part: Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. Mentioning issues once in the relavent thread is fine, but instead of then addressing it at ANI, :boo cited RGW 22 times on the Braucherei talk page. Multiple editors, myself included, asked them to stop. They continued to bring this up a few days ago in the move review which again, is not the appropriate venue.
  While I support a logged warning, my own experience makes me a little concerned. They seemed receptive to my criticism and even apologized to me in March [8], only to immediately continue the same behavior [9]. I called them out on this [10], but honestly I'm still not sure what they were talking about in their response [11]. Hopefully this time will be different. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• After reading through this whole thread, this is unreasonable incivility and arrogance from an expert. This is a net negative... Rhinocrat (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I have not been pinged to this discussion, but learned about it on the Move review. Bloodofox's behavior has displayed ownership and civility issues on the talk page of Braucherei. I had posted a request for feedback on WP:IPNA on March 8 regarding my thoughts about moving the Pow-wow (folk magic) article to another title that was more accurate, and suggested Braucherei – the intention was to start a conversation with some of WP’s Indigenous editors and those interested in Indigenous topics, not to deliberately engage in canvassing. I also (foolishly in retrospect) wrote that I thought the term was “possibly culturally insensitive” and that the title may be “cultural appropriation”. I had no idea that those two terms are forbidden on Wikipedia! I did not think at the time that this would be inappropriate or canvassing. It was not a formal proposal to iVote on a move; it was another editor later turned my original question into a formal move proposal on March 17, over a week later. On March 20, Bloodofox then posted a canvassing message on the Fringe Notice Board (that was called out by two editors one of whom refactored his message due to its non-neutral wording.) I apologize for using the words “cultural appropriation” and “possibly culturally insensitive” in my original query to IPNA, it did not occur to me that they were impermissible. I really had no idea things would blow up the way they have, and I am sorry for any drama I inadvertently stirred up. However, I find the reactions by this editor to be highly inappropriate and uncivil, and am feeling rather bullied by their ongoing assumptions of bad faith on the part of anyone who disagrees with them.
  On the article talk page Bloodofox has accused those disagreeing with him of being “activist” eleven (11) times; ‘canvasser” or canvas(ing) sixteen (16) times; invoked WP:RGW twenty-two (22) times; and “censorship” ten (10) times. He has also stated that editors who disagree are “demanding”, “dishonest”, “desperate”, “inflammatory”, “sarcastic goal-post movers”, and accused others of making statements that were “outright false to the point of insulting” in other words, liars; who are “lobbying to RGW while contributing nothing to article spaces”. He also personally accused me of coordinating “a call to arms” project, to “bring a crew of censors.”
  This seems gravely out of proportion to me, especially when I and other editors brought sources to the table and offered several alternative names for the article such as Pennsylvania Dutch folk magic. Just because Bloodofox has been here a long time does not give him permission to violate civility guidelines. There needs to be a stop to this behavior so that editors can have productive conversations and debates that do not blow up like this. I had no idea before reading this report that similar behavior was occurring elsewhere on the project. Netherzone (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for using the words “cultural appropriation” and “possibly culturally insensitive” in my original query to IPNA, it did not occur to me that they were impermissible.

  They're not? They're not always good arguments but they're definitely not banned. I would at least consider this argument if presented. Loki (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly believe that Bloodofox is a very knowledgeable contributor, but I can't say my experience working with him here has been entirely positive. While we initially got along quite well, in 2022 I got on Bloodofox's bad side during a rewrite of Germanic peoples. The dispute centered around the wording of the lead, leading to a brief edit war [12], [13]. Anyway, things came to a head in this discussion, wherein Bloodofox argued against multiple editors while refusing to provide any source for his preferred wording, all while repeatedly questioned my motives and "qualifications". Just a few examples: ridiculous talk page blather from ideology-motivated editors, you're on a mission here, and that you appear to be far less interested in improving the article than you are in making a point. A second discussion, here, caused even more ad hominems attacking me as an ignorant contributor: I see that you're new to this topic, I get that you're new and excited about all this (and clearly have a pretty strong POV about rejecting the phrase "Germanic peoples" and all). In this second discussion, Bloodofox also pinged in several editors who were likely to agree with him, leading to me scolding him for WP:CANVASSING. Things got fairly heated, and I may have said some things I now regret as well, but I think the point that Bloodofox basically couldn't (or at least didn't) produce any sources that supported his preferred wording and resorted to ad hominem attacks on my supposed lack of knowledge is fairly telling. It's the exact same behavior noted by others on this thread in other contexts. (Perhaps in his defense, once it was clear that consensus was against him, Bloodofox did let go and stop edit-warring).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My experiences mirror to a large degree, those of Ermenrich. On both the Germanic peoples page and the Germanic religion page, he was rather condescending in his tone during group interactions/discussions. When he was asked to provide sources to substantiate his arguments, he more or less either disappeared or quietly allowed consensus to rule by absenteeism—which was a tad off-putting and/or disingenuous. To his credit, he is respected for his knowledge domain on particular subjects. It would be a shame to lose a person with his level of knowledge, but there is room for improvement with regard to civility and the implicit condescension he periodically displays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obenritter (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ermenrich, @Obenritter: I've been trying to avoid the details of my content dispute but responding because you both mention his relationship with sourcing. He won't provide sources for most of his claims, and I'm confident he's been outright been wrong in my recent discussion with him. When he does provide a source, it is not something that would ever get through dispute resolution (which may explain why he is so resistant to it). When I do provide source to contest what he has said, his basic pattern is to mention the names of scholars, loosely suggesting they agree with him, and quoting poetry. I want to give an example.

In my view, this conduct simply doesn't work when you're facing a group of knowledgeable editors, but does if you're dealing primary with 1 editor (and some bystanders); i.e., it's the most advanced SQ stonewalling I've ever seen. Ermenrich: Regarding the part about pinging people likely to agree with him: yes. I received this "feedback" from one of his regular collaborators earlier. I've disengaged from the page but I can they're being abrasive with another user right now. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know, ImaginesTigers, you really should ping me if you're going to link to diffs here of edits I've made. I'd like to make clear, as anyone who clicks on that first link can see, that "feedback" of which you speak was not addressed to you, so you didn't "recieve" it. If you think my reply to the other editor was "abrasive", I would say that seems hypersensitive, especially in light of the fact that said editor kindly apologized for their comment. Apparently you were offended, but they weren't. Carlstak (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth could directly saying that someone "doesn't have the editorial chops" to do something not be addressed to that person? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full quote of your comment, for clarity:

Agreed. The article could use some rewriting, but ImagineTigers, who I'm sure means well, doesn't have Bloodofox's expertise, and in my opinion, doesn't have the editorial chops to pull it off.

And it doesn't make any difference that it was a reply to another editor's comment, it's obvious the recipient of your barb was ImagineTigers. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>I provide a massive, collapsed box of scholarship contradicting him on Snorri/Gna

I think you may be misinterpreting one or both of (a) bloodofox's claim, or (b) the sources. The claim is not (on my reading) that Snorri did not write anything within the Prose Edda, or didn't compile it; it is that the particular poetic fragment in question was not original to Snorri—i.e., he includes it but did not author it. This is, so far as I am aware, the standard view.

The sources you quote there say things like "Snorri tells us that Gná ...", or "Snorri cites a strange verse exchange [about Gná] ...", etc.—these do not imply the stanza in Glyfaginning was authored by Snorri, but only that Snorri refers to Gná in the work / Snorri compiled material about Gná.

It is also somewhat puzzling to me that you include, in the infobox'd list of citations, the exact quote from the exact source that he had just quoted to you—hence, he is clearly aware of it & does not think it supports your position... so why include it?! I mean, 'snot important, really; I guess I just associate that sort of thing with people attempting to bury an opponent under imposing-looking walls of text while hoping they aren't examined too closely; but from reading through the discussion, it doesn't seem like that was actually your M.O.—I'd judge you as reasonably & cogently arguing a point with the real & genuine intention to discover the truth about it—and I admit to being a bit disappointed that bloodofox eventually ceased responding in detail (I'm an enthusiast, not an expert, so these discussions often end up valuable to me as an onlooker, y'see).

bias notice: I've only had positive interactions with bloodofox, before all this stuff happened (or, well: interaction, singular, probably a year or more ago by now), and feel like many of the people airing grievances in this thread are way too sensitive—but! I swear that hasn't affected my interpretation of this one particular point at all!–

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's unfortunate that this has gone all the way to the CBAN level, but it's also unfortunate that bloodofox's defenders - including myself here at times - have let it get this far via enabling him on the theory that he knows a lot. It's absolutely true that a lot of bloodofox's contributions have been good. This is what makes it so frustrating that he so consistently misinterprets what other editors are up to in objectively incorrect ways. See the "List of Cryptids" debate linked to by Rhododendrites, where he accuses Rhododendrites of tag-teaming as a duo with an editor who Rhododendrites proposed be topic-banned. Bananas. Or see the bizarre accusations that ImaginesTigers was "stalking" him - when ImaginesTigers began his Odin draft rewrite, he didn't interact with bloodofox at all and doesn't seem to have interacted with him before. No, it's just an editor being interested in the topic. Even after this ANI thread was opened - and when bloodofox should have known to be on somewhat more polite behavior - he still was bizarrely hostile to ImaginesTigers. In the Bæddel FAR and talk page, bloodofox grossly overreacted to the whole citation to the OED matter. Now, he found a problem, and if he'd just raised it, it'd have been great. But instead he acted like a tweak where a statement was somewhat overstating how much the citation backed it - that it merely mentioned another scholar's view while the text implied it endorsed it - was evidence that Generalissima was faking sources or an activist or incompetent or the like. It took what could have been an easy win for collaboration that, to repeat, other editors agreed on, and made it a terrible feel bad.
• I want to qualify something here. We shouldn't necessarily treat all saltiness on talk pages as a bad sign. In some domains, good editors have to deal with genuine threats to the encyclopedia - POV-pushers, promotional editors, and people who are just straight liars. Some amount of "calling a spade a spade" can be legitimate then, and some editors are themselves inflammatory in comments, so getting some of their own medicine back can be understandable. So the mere fact that bloodofox has denounced editors should not be held up as a cause for sanction. But - the problem is that bloodofox's denunciations are aimed at completely the wrong targets, obvious good faith editors who really have read the sources, and who are engaging in the boring, common process of scholarship that happens everywhere else. Most editors would count themselves lucky to have such "opponents" who were so patient as to bother responding to his extremely over-the-top denunciations of them. Even giving BOO the absolute most credit for being "right" here (and to be clear he's not in fact always 100% right), he can treat these other editors like regular humans who might be a touch misinformed but willing to respond to sources and arguments. Why he is unable is baffling and frustrating, but this is where all the earlier attempts to send warning bells clearly failed, like the terrible close of the List of cryptids debate that basically said "you go king".
• I hope that bloodofox is not too annoyed at Wikipedia and is still willing to contribute, but if he is and wants to stay here, please, please, don't be a "brilliant jerk". We don't need brilliant jerks. Commit to acting civilly in all situations and easing up the heat on good-faith editors, and a CBAN may yet be avoided. SnowFire (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been on Wikipedia since 2007. I have had a number of encounters with Bloodofox over the years, albeit none recently. None of them have been positive. I think their engagement in this discussion was typical - at every juncture the attitude was that anyone discussing with them must be someone as invested as they were in the discussion, but from the other side, and thus ipso facto a bad-faith actor. I'm not !voting in this discussion (yet) but I'm disappointed to see that not much appears to have changed in the past five+ years. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

(Note: I have no non-admin-capacity involvement with any of the discussions at issue here. However, Generalissima was my mentee—not that she needed much help to quickly surpass me as a far superior content creator—and the closer is welcome to give less weight to my !vote on that basis.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have repeatedly found myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Bloodofox's opinion but finding the way they are going about expressing that opinion disagreeable. I don't feel that they are a net negative but they're certainly making it harder and not easier to reach consensus in a civil manner. Its important to keep in mind that being right isn't enough... I don't think we're at the point of no return where a community ban is the best outcome though. I hold out hope that Bloodofox can self correct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'd easily support a page ban, and I agree with Tamzin's analysis here that part of the issue in this case is bloodofox refusing to consider the idea of queer scholarship legitimate. But I think the maximum reasonable sanction if that's the full story is a WP:GENSEX topic ban.

I think we should only consider a (cross-topic) CBAN if:

a. The problem is not with bloodofox's behavior in any given topic area but a general lack of civility across all topic areas.

b. Bloodofox has been given enough WP:ROPE that they could reasonably anticipate a CBAN for further misbehavior.

I think a) is likely to be true: in addition to the GENSEX-adjacent debate that spawned this ANI thread, we've also seen reports of issues over at Braucherei and at Odin, though I haven't looked into either of those situations with enough detail to be confident saying that bloodofox's behavior was definitely bad. For b), though, I don't think a single warning at AE qualifies. If there's more evidence that bloodofox should have known they were cruising for a CBAN then I wouldn't be opposed, but right now it seems like we're jumping straight to the strongest possible sanction right from the start. Loki (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, upon reading the thread Rhododendrites linked from 2018, and seeing how bloodofox's behavior hasn't changed as measured by multiple recent topic bans, I am now convinced that they have in fact been given sufficient WP:ROPE and would support a CBAN. Loki (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that conversation at tamzin's talk page last july is frankly bizarre. in my view, it speaks to an inability to let things go. re: the "activist source" issue at Bæddel/bædling, i did not want to make that point because well, i know i'd be called an "activist editor" too. that is a frequent accusation which bloodofox makes against editors they disagree with (and sometimes it has merit to it!), such as with Falun Gong and Mami Wata. in fact they doubled down on the unfounded "activism" accusation against ForsythiaJo in this thread: "responding to ideological drive-by editing". now, i'm not familiar with the Mami Wata topic, but i do know what WP:ASPERSIONS are. i'm sure there really is ideologically-driven editing at Mami Wata, Falun Gong, Braucherei, and other articles they've mentioned. that is not on any planet an excuse to treat fellow editors the way they do. they've been formally warned for this at AE, and it didn't seem to even make a dent - there is scarce evidence of self-reflection or even admitting to poor treatment of others. this very discussion is chock-full of the exact same attitude and behavior that is driving people away from working on articles. i am currently not sure of my position on a CBAN vs. some other solution - i'd love if someone could think of something less than a CBAN but with more teeth than just a "strong warning" - but i think tamzin is absolutely right that whatever we gain by retaining an editor like this, we silently lose much more through the editors they drive away. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 05:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites' comment seals the deal for me. i ran into bloodofox one time at cryptid topics (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not-deer) and it was more of the same condescension. a topic ban would not be effective here - the issues are across all topics they edit. i don't oppose a temporary block as a compromise, but after consideration i'm landing at tentative support for a CBAN - with the understanding that it doesn't have to be permanent. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 23:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think this is too much for the moment, when a GENSEX topic ban hasn't even been proposed yet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Tamzin puts it extremely well. While there is a particular problem here when this behaviour crosses into GENSEX, this is not specifically a problem with Bloodofox's editing of GENSEX articles. Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, and given that major parts of this problem have surfaced (at least) at Braucherei and Odin, there is no reasonable case that a GENSEX ban would prevent further issues. It sways me to hear that Bloodofox has already received a strong, unambiguous warning from an admin: I therefore have no faith that a further stern warning would have any effect, especially given the attitude shown here. I would therefore support a CBAN, though that isn't to say I'd be unwilling to consider a lesser sanction, as Sawyer says. At the minimum, I think I'd be looking for a topic ban from anything related to early medieval Europe, broadly construed -- I think Tamzin's point is really important, that being unwilling to engage with queer scholarship is incompatible with being an expert, particularly in a field like this where queer scholarship is hugely important -- and, incidentally, which has a well-known problem with people trying to use it for virulent racist, sexist, queer-phobic, fascist and similar ideologies. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I've read this entire thread, plus the other various discussions mentioned here, and in my view, there has been, and still is, a pattern of chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This comment from theleekycauldron pretty much sums it up: Just in this thread, I'm seeing lots of other people come forward with their stories of how you derided them as incompetent, negligent, or bad-faith, and how it discouraged them from working with you. It wouldn't matter if you were 100% right on every single content dispute cited here – that's still not an acceptable way to treat people. If you can't be civil in your collaborations with fellow editors, and they just don't want to be around you, because they have felt maligned by your discourse, then you have become a net negative to the project. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a lack of clarity nowadays with civility in policy? I know in the past it was a bit gray and it appears to me that WP:CIVIL seems to have all but gone out the window as something that is enforced.. ? :bloodofox (1 November 2013)

  A little ironic, don't you think? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I would support based on the thread as a whole and my comments/reading of some of the interactions that have been brought up. Additionally, Let's be blunt about this: Generalissima is queer. She is open about this on her userpage. So is Paine Ellsworth. I'd not seen the interactions between Paine and BOO through Tamzin's filter (in the proposal above) and AGF prevents me from doing so. But the question nags... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with Tamzin's analysis up to a point, but I think this is far too much of a leap when we haven't even proposed a GENSEX ban yet. This is a long-term editor with a pretty much clean block log (2 blocks, both overturned) and going straight to a CBAN seems to me a step too far. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I missed that. But it still seems a cban is too extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I've been clear in the section above about my opinion on the matter however I think Horse Eye's Back has most effectively summarized my view above. Simonm223 (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Far too severe. (At this point in time.) Basically, "per Simon223", as HEB puts it well. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as a leap of logic without adequate foundation. Whatever happened to a series of escalating blocks? Start with a three month (?) block and go from there. Hopefully by the end they'll learn that you can be an expert without being an arse. Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten is some of the most juvenile bullshit I've ever seen. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, I support a six month block of the sort SchroCat suggests below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think Bloodofox is the only long-timer that I actively try to avoid, but seeing "maybe three months" or "try a topic ban" made it clear there's been insufficient documentation of a long-term problem. So I guess I will tell you about the saga where Bloodofox decided that I was part of some insidious creationist-cryptozoology conspiracy to thwart wikipolicy and promote stupid cryptid stuff (almost as ironic as the time I got some off-wiki harassment for supporting gamergate after someone misread a revert).
  Basically the same kind of story as the examples above. I stumbled upon list of cryptids maybe a decade ago and made a bunch of edits to remove a lot of the, well, stupid cryptid cruft that had accumulated. Some years later, as part of a broader wikiwar against cryptozoology, Bloodofox decided that page had to go. It was still on my watchlist, and found myself trying to find a middleground between Bloodofox's everything-must-go-and-anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-the-enemy approach and a couple other users' efforts to include cruft based on silly blogs and sighting reports. So I wound up on the enemies list. It was a whole thing that I won't bore you with, and it mostly came to a head in this thread, in which I suggested both Bloodofox and the most active person adding cryptozoology content with insufficient sourcing be topic banned. There was more support for it than not before it was closed (by someone who, when challenged, ignored the thread and suggested we all just thank Bloodofox for sharing his valuable expertise). I threw up my hands with Wikipedia in general for a short while, unwatched the list, and figured I'd just steer clear of Bloodofox because life's too short or something.
  So we have... let's call that a near-miss sanction on the list of cryptids, and add that to a topic ban from the Clintons, a formal warning on speculating about personalizing disputes at Falun Gong, and now -- how many different subjects in the evidence above? All demonstrating the same pattern of pervasive battleground approach to disputes. I do tend to err on the side of more leeway for long-term productive contributors, and I don't know to what extent my own awful experiences with Bloodofox are coloring my reading of the evidence above, but this feels like an old, established pattern that has reached "enough is enough". FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Enough is enough. I agree wholeheartedly with whatever we gain by retaining an editor like this, we silently lose much more through the editors they drive away. I encourage editors who are arguing that this is jumping the gun to have a read of Rhododendrites' comment. And as someone professionally familiar with the topic that brought Generalissima to this noticeboard in the first place, I can say that, well, "activist scholar" isn't something Erik Wade hasn't heard before, but it's a strongly pov comment. It's the sort of thing you say when you go on a right-wing podcast to complain about woke professors brainwashing your kids. It's not the kind of thing you say in polite academic company. -- asilvering (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (involved). With an AE warning and two (reverted) blocks, evidence by this many editors warrants a sanction IMO. Page ban is insufficient because the problematic areas span gender controversy (bæddel and bædling); wider cultural controversy (i.e., braucherei move and post-move discussions); and Old Norse content (the Sumarr and Vetr AfD). A GENSEX topic ban seems insufficient; there's plenty of queer Old Norse scholarship but that doesn't warrant a GENSEX flag on the articles and so may not catch further issues. It's natural to wonder if bloodofox's 20+ years has played a role in the vanishingly small Old Norse editor base. Plenty of complex topic areas have thriving and highly collaborative editor bases (e.g., Classical Greek and Rome's recent rescue of Carus' Sasanian campaign). Bloodofox pinged in one "regular collaborator" to Talk:Odin who had never edited the article before, and their response is horrifyingly reminiscent of his own critiques, with not a single bit of actionable feedback on the content (diff). We know the result of inappropriately focusing on contributors over content and it's not editor retention. It's possible the damage to the topic area is worse than our current understanding. While a TBAN from medieval Europe might force reflection on how to gather consensus without leveraging their presumed expertise, bloodofox's long-term failures to make a strong arguments on Talk without bludgeoning and incivility really calls this expertise into question. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• After starting the thread, I was very unsure what sort of sanctions would be appropriate or effective here. Tamzin and Rhododendrites make really good points here — the behavior is not restricted to any one topic or even related cluster of topics, it has been evidenced for years now, and there have been existing sanctions which indicate that this behavior is not tolerated. I think the biggest negative here is the fact that bloodofox's behavior seems to actively drive people away from topics that need more help. What sticks with me most is the editor that told ImaginesTigers "welcome to the Norse mythology Wikipedia editing experience". Out of context, that might seem like a petty jab, but with all this context it's the sign of a problem gone way, way too far. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Disproportionate. The accuracy and balance of our encyclopaedic coverage are paramount; while civility is important, we do not promote neutrality by attempting to balance the competing preferences/needs of editors, but rather by attempting to report the positions of reliable sources. Academics disagree, and academics in different fields can take quite different approaches to an intersectional topic (opening up different avenues of approach is an important aspect of modern scholarship). It's our job as encyclopaedia writers to deal with this in a way that informs the reader, not to have either a symposium or a cage match over which approach is the one true one, and not even to assume that the latest scholarship is always right and throw out older scholarship. Bloodofox has been right in pointing to the body of existing scholarship and in establishing that scholars that other Wikipedians may not have heard of are not therefore necessarily unworthy (Liberman and Wade are both RS). He's been right in pointing out that something went wrong in the asessment of Bæddel and bædling for FA (and probably GA too; I'm not sure what the GA standard is on completeness and balance). Yes, he writes robustly, even rudely at times. But banning him for upholding standards on content would be shooting the messenger. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I find not to have either a symposium or a cage match over which approach is the one true one an odd sentence in a defence of bloodofox. In the FAR he is adamant that the article should center his field of linguistics, and his evaluation of Wade has all the nuance of a steel chair. If he is representing an academic consensus, he has done a very poor job of demonstrating it. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But of course the article should "center" linguistics. It's about 2 glosses, and the argument is over how to balance competing arguments about the etymology. Bloodofox has been trying to get an actual etymology section with coverage of the mainstream etymological arguments into the article. In short: the article should cover both the content sourced to Germanic linguists and the content sourced to the queer theorist making a language-based argument, it's not either/or. This is an encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for arguing preferred analyses. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I am the editor who took Ýdalir to GAR last year and was met with aspersions about my editing ability and knowledge. Since GAR can be touchy, I assumed they were acting out of frustration at the process and didn't concern myself further. I commented at the baedling FAR briefly, to point out that bloodofox was leaving walls of bludgeoning text accusing others of leaving bludgeoning walls of text. Unsurprisingly, given their attitude elsewhere at that page, they did not acknowledge the point or alter their approach. Around this point, I realized that they were the same editor from the GAR and realized that the behavior was clearly not limited to GAR. Otherwise, I don't edit Norse mythology or history, or pretty much anywhere else that bloodofox hangs out. So I would call myself mildly involved.
  Until this thread, I was not aware of the scope and breadth of their behavior, and I am convinced that it does merit a CBAN. The evidence linked and quoted in this thread makes it clear that bloodofox's uncivil and downright nasty behavior is long-term, in that it extends over years, and wide-spread, in that it touches multiple topic areas and targets multiple people. A page-ban, IBAN, or TBAN would be insufficient to prevent further nastiness, and would only push it to another area. Several people above are concerned about escalating sanctions: what does one call stern warnings at AE, a previous TBAN, and two blocks? And yet the behavior continues. Yes, both blocks were overturned, once by a frankly out-of-process unblock that leaves me scratching my head - but nonetheless, you would think being blocked even once would be a wake-up call. Given their messages to Tamzin half a year after the AE warning, it is clear that warnings and finger-wagging do nothing but make them more aggrieved rather than more cautious. What can we do with an editor who refuses to acknowledge wrong-doing, who stews on grievances, who makes no change to their behavior and attitude? The only option is to show them the door. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose, having had relatively little interaction with Bloodofox, although remembering that they were tendentious. I have for a long time thought that users with Long block logs should be considered as likely net negatives and should often be indeffed. Bloodofox doesn't have a long block log. Can one of the editors who is proposing to ban Bloodofox show me evidence that is shorter than the long list of diffs collapsed above that indicates that this editor is a net negative? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, opposing because you can't be bothered to read the extensive evidence is just wrong. If you don't have sufficient information to make a decision and don't wish to spend the time to obtain it, why comment at all? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to mention that the block log, in this case, speaks eloquently as to why this has been allowed to go on for so long. -- asilvering (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking the Weak Oppose, planning to read the evidence within a few days. On a content dispute, such as an AFD, MFD, or DRV, I know that I usually have six days in which to read the evidence, and the evidence isn't usually as long as in a conduct case. If this thread is closed before I finish reading the evidence, then the community may have reached rough consensus before I reached a conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk)

• Temporary oppose. If a (trans)gender related case is opened by ArbCom soon, this should be considered in that case. I am not going to try and add this to that case, because I'm trying to be an outsider there, but I think that the topic area as a whole needs looked at, which is best done by ArbCom in the arbitration setting with evidence and discussion/proposals by all. For clarity, I'm making this comment in both sections here, and my view here shouldn't be considered if the ArbCom case does not get accepted. I just feel strongly that the problems in this topic area are significantly larger than any one user, and I trust ArbCom, if they accept the case which I think is likely and necessary, will come up with good solutions to problems - whether they be topic/full bans, or otherwise. Until that happens, I don't think it's helpful for individuals to be sanctioned outside of that process, assuming it happens at all (which again, I think is likely). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I've spent some time looking into the particular entry which gave rise to this conflict. When Bloodofox first tagged the entry, it contained a false claim at the end of the opening paragraph. Whether that arose from a simple mistake or confirmation bias is not particularly important. The fact that the article was turned into a battleground to resist any changes (it took 48 hours and multiple reverts for the straightforward correction of "the OED supports Zupitza's theory") and that 0 characters of Bloodofox's contributions have been allowed to stand shows WP:OWN concerns and a resistance to expert intervention. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) This seems to be a vote about relitigating one specific point on one page, and completely ignores Bloodofox's attitude and approach over multiple pages, multiple topics and several years. I'll repeat what others have posted several times: being "right" about something does not give one the right to ignore civility policies and be utterly obnoxious al everyone who doesn't agree with them. This is an ongoing and long-term problem, not a one-off about whether someone was "right" on one page. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as this ANI starts by claiming that Bloodofox is guilty of WP:OWN, it is well to point out that this is very much the opposite of what happened on the page that gave rise to this filing. The ownership behaviour is demonstrably coming from the other side. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take a blinkered view about "sides", then that's up to you, but there's a definite problem that is not being addressed, and that's an open sore that needs to be dealt with, not just ignored. The rest of the evidence, such as the Braucherei thread has been highly persuasive in my line of thinking. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if for a fixed period An outright ban crosses close to overkill for me, but this is an ongoing, long-term problem that has resulted in a couple of blocks, a visit to AE and a TBAN. A topic ban, like the one proposed below, doesn't cover all the areas of disruption, so the alternatives are either a TBAN plus multiple bans across several pages, or a time-limited community ban or block for a period of six months or so, so I'm landing here for now, although I could be persuaded by alternatives if something more crafted to the circumstances could be worked up, but buying our heads in the sand and vaguely (and dubiously) claiming 'but he was right' is kicking the can down the road for problems yet to come. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakest possible oppose. Some of the newest evidence almost pushed be into support, but at the end of the day, I still have this concern: the community has broadly failed to apply the escalating sanctions model here, and :bloodofox:'s failings are therefor our failings. I'm not even saying I am confident :boo: is a net positive: it looks to me from the evidence presented here that on the whole, they may not have been for a while, so poisonous have their interactions apparently been for so many veteran editors (and who can guess how many more lower edit count editors were discouraged by similar comments who never knew bringing the matter here was an option). But again, that's on all of us, and going from near complete enabling to full community ban just feels problematic to me. But at this point, my oppose is based solely on not wanting to set a bad precedent for how we approach CBANs. That said, I am all for a block of non-trivial length. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that bloodofox:'s failings are therefor our failings, when numerous editors have alerted them, throughout various talk page discussions, that their approach to editing the encyclopedia is not compatible with our established editorial and behavioral policies and guidelines. Their failure to heed the advice given them on numerous occasions, is their failure alone. In just one example, out of numerous, six years ago they were warned - you risk getting overheated in your defense of Wikipedia and could get sanctioned for how you react to people, but yet they continued, so I reject the idea that we somehow have failed our obligation to warn them of what could happen, and that because the community has broadly failed to apply the escalating sanctions model here, we should take the blame for their actions. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Per multiple comments above, this seems excessive, given that Bloodfox hasn't previously been sanctioned for such behaviour. It is clearly problematic, but immediate escalation to a CBAN seems unprecedented. A block for a couple of months at most would seem more in line with norms. And I'm inclined to agree with SnowRise above that if what appears to be a long-running issue hasn't been brought here before, it is indicative of a broader failings from the community and, in my opinion, quite possibly a consequence of the way WP:ANI discussions tend to spiral out of control far too often. As a way of encouraging 'civility', this place is far from optimum, and far too often, one gets the distinct impression that it is being used as an arena for continuing content disputes and/or settling old scores. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I arrived at this decision after following a link to this ANI because of the uncivil and demeaning behavior at Talk:Braucherei and the associated move reviews. However, I now realize that the belittling of other editors, casting of aspersions and unfounded accusations are patterns of ongoing behavior that has occurred across multiple areas of the encyclopedia for quite a few years. Bloodofox is an experienced, knowledgeable and active editor, and because of that should be aware of the parameters for decency and civility. Yet it seems that they have leaned on their longevity to repeatedly ignore the boundaries of civil discourse. As an active editor, there is no way these community expectations could have slipped by his notice. Pretty much everyone loses their cool from time to time when they get flustered or frustrated or believe they are right, so heated discussions are understandable. But the evidence that has been brought forward by multiple editors over a long expanse of time, proves that this is far beyond heated or passionate discussions and has entered the realm of downright hostile behaviors that have harmed the community. I have read this entire ANI thread and it’s clear that Bloodofox has not learned from the AE warning, TBAN and two blocks as well as multiple requests to stop the offensive behaviors and uncivil treatment of others, and the GENSEX issues. I agree with what Tamzin has brought to the table, and think that the comments by Rhododendrites, theleekycauldron, PMC, Isaidnoway, asilvering, and others have stated as strong rationales to support a CBAN, which can be appealed in 6-months. At this time I find the 3rd option of a 6 month block unacceptable because it may not include full community involvement. Netherzone (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hesitant support. While I'm not completely opposed to starting with a shorter block, this thread shows that multiple editors have tried to tell :boo that their behavior is inappropriate in the past to no avail. As I said earlier[14], I brought these issues up with :boo Talk:Braucherai in March. I thought they were receptive to it as they apologized to me on my talk page [15]. Unfortunately they immediately went back to casting aspersions in an inappropriate forum [16]. When I called them out on this, they just brought up RGW for the 23rd time (the other 22 are throughout the move request). Nothing is going to change if :boo doesn't think they did anything wrong. So far, I haven't seen any indication that they realize their behavior is inappropriate. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 22:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the cogent arguments made by the other opposers. It is clear to me that Bloodofox is here to build an encyclopedia and their loss would be a net negative. Too many of the supporters appear to see him as an obstacle to writing areas of the encyclopedia the way they want (i.e. content disputes) and this should raise red flags. It is possible to work with people with an abrasive style, and I think Bloodofox will take this discussion to heart and improve their behaviour. Jumping straight to a community ban is not right here. The other options below feel like forum shopping to get some sort of result. This discussion itself, and the warning it gives, should be sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Yngvadottir's comments. The bit above about being "horrifyingly reminiscent" is pretty funny.;-) Carlstak (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Based solely on his conduct at Talk:Braucherei and the related move review, Bloodofox did not heed the warning to avoid commenting on editors' perceived motivations. I'm supporting a ban at this time because I don't think any of the alternatives are workable/go far enough. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as disproportionate for the alleged offense, which appears to me to be supported by a leap of assumptions. Boo called a scholar an activist for citing Feinberg; that is not the same as declaring queer medieval history to not exist. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, because the Tban or block aren't happening and all the uninvolved admins are too scared to follow policy. This is not my first choice, but something must happen. Toadspike [Talk] 17:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike, that's an unnecessary slur about hundreds of admins. I encourage you to strike that comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: If a user feels that admins are unwilling or unable to do our jobs, I don't think that the appropriate response, for an admin, is to request a retraction. I don't think Toadspike is entirely right here (social capital dynamics around blocking power users are about more than just fear), but it's important that non-admins feel able to freely criticize the admin team. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand Liz's feelings that TS's assessment is an oversimplification, I think Tamzin's observation is the more critical one: we must preserve an environment in which rank and file community members are free to voice their concerns about the use administrative prerogative--including when it comes to misgivings about inaction. Coming down too hard on such comments, even when we feel they were made hastily or without sufficient nuance, runs the risk of creating a chilling effect. And not for nothing, but blowing off steam via exaggeration of the inaction of the authorities is a necessary social lubricant for any collaborative human endeavour! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that admins should be immune to criticism, User:Tamzin. I get criticized all of the time! But this comment was just such a blanket slur, it seemed thoughtless rather than malicious. While, like I said, no one is immune from criticism, I also don't think that insulting generalizations should get said about our editors and admins and not get called out as inappropriate. Admins are not a protected class, I agree, but they also shouldn't be open targets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the devil is in the detail here, Liz. I agree there is nothing wrong with responding to a comment like ToadSpike's in this instance by pointing out that unflattering blanket generalizations aren't the most productive feedback. That's a reasonable perspective to have/opinion to express. On the other hand, an admin saying that someone should strike their observation can easily be mistaken for more than a "suggestion". Toadspike did not make an accusation of a policy violation by a particular user, or anything else along those lines that could pass for an WP:Aspersion. They merely opined about the lack of proactiveness on the part of the administrative corps to act in cases of power users (to borrow Tamzin's choice of terminology).

Now, as Tamzin also said, that statement about admins is an oversimplification at best. But it's also not exactly an unheard-of opinion among the non-mopped, nor is it something that constitutes a brightline violation of any policy. So calling for a striking in those circumstances is probably not a great look when it comes from an admin, in relation to a criticism of broad patterns of administrator tendencies--whether the assessment is fair or not. Just two cents from yours truly to one of my personal favourite admins. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And just to avoid my statement about oversimplification itself being an oversimplification, I'll be clear on what I think about what Toadspike said: Admins are generally hesitant to block experienced users for reasons of social capital. "Social capital" sometimes gets used in a disparaging way, but it's not inherently bad. Social capital is a measure of how much we trust one another, and if I as an admin see that a bunch of my peers all trust a specific user, that should give me pause before blocking the user. However, that isn't absolute, and when a block is necessary to prevent disruption, an admin should be willing to make that block. When looking at individual cases as an outside observer, I think it's pretty easy to see the difference between the good kind of social-capital-induced block hesitation and the bad kind. But it's hard to disentangle the two fully. Snow Rise, if you don't mind me using you as an example in good fun: If someone says something rude to you and you respond with a serious personal attack, and I choose not to block you, am I holding back because you are a well-respected editor who probably made a lapse in judgment in the heat of the moment, or am I holding back because you are a well-respected editor whose admirers would almost certainly take issue with the block? Both, of course; the two concepts are inextricably linked. All that is to say, fear is part of why no one's blocked Bloodofox here, but it isn't the full story, and the full story is as much a feature as a bug. We don't want Judge Dredd–style admins crossing off whomever they want with impunity; we also don't want cliques to prevent admins from enforcing policy. It's a tough balance to strike. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if I have enough admirers to give any admin pause in a block by virtue of my community standing, but your point is a cogent one in principle. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Liz. I know you mean well, but I stand by what I wrote. Fear is, to me, the only reasonable explanation for the fact that a blatant aspersion and personal attack (About theleekycauldron above: In fact, the editor had not read the article. An accusation not only unsupported, but falsified by the discussion in question) hasn't received so much as a warning in return. Tamzin and SnowRise have expressed this with a little more nuance. I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that a policy all admins are responsible for enforcing has not been enforced. I admit that it is less appropriate to speculate on why it hasn't been enforced, but I picked the most charitable explanation I could find in an effort to assume good faith. The fact that my "slur" was questioned while bloodofox's comment containing aspersions, personal attacks ("the most ill-intentioned way possible", "this editor is apparently out for my (ox)blood"), and blatant falsehoods ("snowball keep") still hasn't been simply proves my point. (If I come across as frustrated or disappointed, it is because I am.) Toadspike [Talk] 10:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Editors are our most valuable resource, and we are all volunteers. I've been following this thread. It reminds me of a subject-matter expert in one of my areas of interest a few years ago, who was so abrasive that they were impossible to collaborate with, and who got CBANned. Before that happened, I learned to avoid conflict by refraining from editing any article where they were active. That may not have been best for the encyclopedia, but it was was definitely best for my peace of mind. (I dislike WP:GRAVEDANCING, but could verify the username by email to anyone with a good reason to ask for it.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support After reading of all the evidence, I'm inclined to support the CBAN, because of the sheer civility problems they have, and the refusal of collaborating with others that disagree with their view points. And the amount of aspersions they have cast on other editors. Also per Alexandermcnabb. Codename AD ^talk 12:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakest possible oppose - Bloodofox has been rude and belittling for absolute years on here. My own experience of them (in the "Cryptid" discussions circa 2018-19) was that anyone who disagreed with them was clearly, in their eyes, someone who believed that Cryptids were real and thus anything they had to say was instantly irrelevant and to be ignored. Regardless of the sourcing, regardless of how clear they were that they did not believe in Cryptids - merely saw sufficient sourcing to support an article about the fictional animal concerned as a fictional animal - in their eyes these people were mouth-frothing true believers in pseudoscience and were to be treated to as such.

I don't see that anything here has changed in that time, but it's also clear that this is the result of a failure to act on the Wikipedia community, indeed rewarding this behaviour as part of a crackdown on perceived pseudoscience. At least in the past this behaviour has even been rewarded and cheered on (I think "Yes we are biased" is the biggest example of this kind of swaggering, unnecessary, counter-productive triumphalism, not uncoincidentally...). However, the community has some hot-button topics where this kind of disrespectful behaviour will get you directly in to trouble, and GENSEX is clearly one of them. And that's what happened here.

So why oppose? Mostly because I think that people who contribute in other areas - or even (let's be honest) purposefully avoid hot-button topics because of the regularity with which it has bad outcomes for people within those areas - also deserve to be treated with respect. It should not only be the case that people can behave badly for years just so long as they stay clear of Wikipedia's "third rail", and that only editors within that area are defended against being treated in this fashion. The message I'm getting here is that Bloodofox could have carried on with their behaviour for another 20 years without anyone saying against them, just so long as it wasn't in the GENSEX area.

For me to support we'd have to clear that Bloodofox's behaviour was unacceptable regardless of who it was directed towards or what area it occurred in. FOARP (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, I can't say I understand what you mean by For me to support we'd have to clear that Bloodofox's behaviour was unacceptable regardless of who it was directed towards or what area it occurred in. The GENSEX tban is already off the table precisely because the issues span many (all?) topic areas. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not the case being made at the head of this section. The case being made there is that this is about behaviour in the GENSEX area: that Bloodofox blundered carelessly into that minefield, behaving there as they did in other areas, and that’s what blew him up. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen an editor who I personally found behaved in an unacceptable fashion (I think Narky Blert above may also be thinking of the same editor), but who was generally celebrated, only finally come apart that way.

If Bloodofox is being CBAN’d, it needs to be stated clearly that this is because of behaviour that would be found unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-read Tamzin's first paragraph, and can't find any way of reading it that doesn't unequivocally say this is because of behaviour that would be found unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. See in particular I've been sitting here for a while trying to think of a lesser sanction that would prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, and I've got nothing. I warned Bloodofox at AE 18 months ago for speculat[ing] about other editors' religious views [and] attempt[ing] to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views, and the conduct described above, and the very lacking response thereto, only serve to convince me that Bloodofox' tendency to personalize disputes, including by focusing on editors' identities, has only gotten worse, not better (all emphasis mine). Do you think something needs to be added to that? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, there's no way to say this in a way that can't be read as sarcastic, but it's in no way my intent: have you read the other support votes, and the discussion preceding this proposal? Many editors have pointed out problems that stretch far beyond the gensex topic area as their reasons for supporting a cban. In my own support !vote, I specifically cited Rhododendrites', for example. The talk page message Tamzin refers to in the first paragraph of the cban proposal is also not gensex-related, if you want another example. -- asilvering (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not what other editors have said, it's the motion we're supporting/opposing. I want it clearly stated, not just implied, that this is not just another example of an editor carelessly treading in to a CTOP minefield. FOARP (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

1) the concerted, meticulous and principled work of many of our most dedicated subject matter experts in confronting and minimizing all manner of dubious, niche, and woo-oriented content, resisting the efforts of those pushing heterodox POVs out of sheer credulousness or self-interested promotion. A deeply a critical function for this project.

And, unfortunately, also 2) some of its more zealous participants frequently blowing their lid out of burn-out and/or an overdeveloped sense that they are the ultimate guardians of the rational in the culture wars, losing all sight of our civility guidelines, AGF, and best practices for discussion and dispute resolution.

At an absolute minimum, FTN is bar-none the the forum with the single largest footprint for WP:BITE anywhere on the project, and there's not even really a close second. In fact, the space has become so well known as a magnet for high-conflict personalities on both sides of the fringe divide that I've seen a number of people in past ANI discussions seriously propose deprecating the entire forum.

All of which is to say, this self-appointed sense of entitlement to show short shrift to normal community behavioural expectations is long overdue for an organized response from the community; be it a series of pointed ArbCom cases, heavier enforcement at AE and ANI, promulgation of new policy language or all of the above. Because the editors who have adopted this philosophy of exceptionalism to the rules in the name of "fighting the good fight" against religion, and woo, and so forth do coordinate informally in rather a big pack, consistently arriving to reinforce one-another in editorial discussions at noticeboards and talk spaces.

I've never had a direct interaction with :bloodofox: before this discussion, but I did recognize their name when they showed up here from several previous disputes that ended up at ANI which concerned religious movements and "cults" as a controversial label--an area where it is common to see the same type of efforts to gatekeep and deligitimize other users as has been a central complaint in this thread.

And believe me, I am deeply convinced those attitudes need to be systematically disconstructed and removed from our work spaces (starting most asusredly with FTN). But FOARP is right: we have enabled these bullying tactics from self-styled anti-fringe warriors for years through our inaction. And much as I want to see a seachange in that respect, it just feels like a bad place to start by going straight from zero (no action, as CIV and AGF are regularly treated like toilet paper in these areas) to a hundred (a CBAN without trying any intermediary solutions first).

We should instead be using a much more gradual (but firm and widely applied) movement towards making sure our basic behavioural standards are applied equally to all editors: new and old, skeptic and non-skeptic. This "well, they have to deal with so many SPAs and POV pushers, it's understandable if they lose any sense of tact" rationalization has got to be discarded. In these areas we need editors with higher than normal patience and proclivity towards applying all editorial and behavioural rules equanimously, even in the face of WP:NOTHERE. The idea that maintaining the bulwark against WP:FRINGE requires a losening of the normal rules or else we stand no chance of containing the worst of the credulous editors, self-promoters, and true believers is a complete canard. Indeed, it's an attitude that has clearly for years enabled huge time sinks for the community, and then we act surprised when the indulgence of these "fight fire with fire" attitudes predictably set entire content areas ablaze.

But until we make the appropriate changes in a coordinated way as a community, we shouldn't be dumping all of our ire on an editor all at once because the dam finally broke. We turned a blind eye to those attitudes as a community. We can't absolve ourselves of complicency by putting it all on individual editors and shoving them out the door. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(involved) Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it seems like you’re saying a small slice of the community has neglected its responsibility to editors previously, and now must abdicate responsibility to the wider editor base as a result. I certainly didn’t sign up for anyone to be a bully on anti-fringe crusades (and don’t know bloodofox’s history there).

You use a dam as a metaphor—an unstoppable current we must simply survive. That’s an unreasonable expectation of the community. Very few editors are a dam (especially if they largely produce fights instead of content). They are a broken pipe. We fix pipes that leak and hopefully, long term, design pipes that don’t. Far more people will quietly show themselves the door if we wrongly aim empathy at those causing disruption over the disrupted. (And after a TBAN and an AE warning!) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tigers, could I trouble you to link me to the TBAN in question? I keep seeing it referenced here, but if it is still in effect, it isn't logged at WP:EDR, nor has anyone (that I have seen) mentioned what the proscribed area was, who applied it (community, ArbCom or admin working at AE), or what the context was. I have a response of mixed agreement and disagreement for your last post in mind (actually, I typed it out yesterday), but one element of my perspective is open to adjustment based on the specific of the TBAN situation. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it was mentioned in the very first post - it was a year-long topic ban from the clintons back in 2016. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 04:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks, I do recall that now. I don't suppose you'd happen to have a link or even just the basic deets on the discussion by which it was applied? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive203#bloodofox ... sawyer * any/all * talk 06:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SnowRise, I fully agree. I really wish this had ended with a 24hr block and a warning that the next one will be longer. Toadspike [Talk] 05:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree- SnowRise has their finger on the pulse here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Carcharoth. Haukur (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Carcharoth and AndyTheGrump. Jumping straight to a cban seems excessive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per FOARP's "third rail" and i suggest editors should critically read the proposer's second paragraph. What Tamzin is clearly and transparently saying by implication is certain editors, content, and sources in this topic area are beyond criticism, those who dare should be banned, and that identity is more important than building an encyclopedia. See how easy that is? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and that "anyone" certainly inlcudes a large number of outright trolls, the incompetent, POV-pushers, and yes activists. There is an unsupported assumption, i would say myth, that droves of potentially productive editors are being driven off the project due to civility issues (mostly from FTN or as is stated above those of a "certain personality type"). My observation is that any criticism, far from driving editors away, is often elevated to "civility" concerns and weaponized either here or at AE. What is not an assumption and is supported is that editors leave because they become demotivated when they are unable to continue pushing bad content into articles Steinsson, Sverrir (2024). "Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet". American Political Science Review. 118 (1). Cambridge University Press: 235–251. doi:10.1017/S0003055423000138. fiveby(zero) 15:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set aside the "broader" case for a moment and focus on this specific editor. There are people in this thread saying they've been driven off from contributing in areas boo frequents, editors who aren't "incompetent", "trolls", or "POV-pushers". Even if for the sake of argument you're right about other areas, it seems clear that it's not the case here. It's been openly known to be something of a missing stair problem in the area, and I say this as someone who agrees with him on parts and thinks it would be a shame to lose his expertise. Just because bloodofox has valuable feedback doesn't change the fact he objectively has driven off good editors trying to improve articles in ways he doesn't approve of (e.g. the Odin case or cryptids case above). There really isn't any question this has happened; just read the links. So I don't think hypothesizing the problem is overstated in general is relevant here. SnowFire (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the OP certainly has merit. If I understand correctly, previous similar instances happened in 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2023. Some see this as evidence of a pattern of conduct that isn't improving. I don't see it that way: I think if an editor crosses the line every 2 or 3 years, that's OK. That's an acceptable frequency of policy violations. Especially when it comes to civility (everyone loses their cool sometimes, every few years is not too often IMO, and incivility is very subjective), and especially for editors who edit in controversial topic areas (where it can be very, very hard not to lose one's cool, much harder than when editing alone or editing non-controversial topics). So, for me, I don't think this level of incivility every 2-3 years is worthy of a CBAN. That doesn't mean we should do nothing (and I will make a proposal below), but for me it just doesn't reach the level of the ultimate sanction. If this were happening every year instead of every few years, I'd probably have supported it. Levivich (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Levivich I agree in theory that that wouldn't be an unacceptable rate of losing ones' cool, but I think you missed a bit of the timeline. The situation on Braucherei originally happened in March 2025 (discussion in question and summary), and the interaction with Paine[17] happened earlier this month. The discussion here opened with mention of some instances in 2024 [18] as well. By my count, the line crossing is happening multiple times a year, not every few years. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to noticeboard reports not instances of incivility. If there were only one line crossing in the past year, I'd say that wouldn't even be worth an ANI thread. (Multiple recent line crossings, as here, are worth it.) Levivich (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely belated comment. Tamzin's reasoning in making this proposal (which I have already opposed) includes arguing that Bloodofox's edits show he believes There is no queer medieval history. Anyone who writes about it is actually promoting an agenda. (Italics in the original.) Bloodofox stopped editing after posting above on 12 June. Looking at the history of his talk page before he blanked it, I found that back on 20 April, in response to Urve writing about Bæddel and bædling, I suspect you'd find that my some of my opinions on the article run counter to yours (there's almost certainly an activist history of the term which was written in the 70s and, as part of an influential cultural moment, that history should probably be presented, Bloodofox's response ended with It'd be great to have some WP:RS to add outlining any activist history related to the words, that sounds very interesting. These are not the words of someone negating queer history, and they specifically welcome source-supported content on activism related to the words. Which is what Urve had suggested Bloodofox was likely unaware of. In my opinion this seriously undercuts Tamzin's speculation as to Bloodofox's motivation, which has done Bloodofox an injustice. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the repeated use of "activist" in the comments above makes this defense less than useless. It very clearly just reconfirms Tamzin's statement above: bloodofox (and Urve, for that matter) really does genuinely appear to believe the only possible queer reading of history is an activist one, that the historic value of Wade's academic queer history perspective is about the 1970s when it was developed instead of, y'know, approximately 600-1066. Loki (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been watching this discussion with some interest. But just clear something up, LokiTheLiar, I don't "believe the only possible queer reading of history is an activist one". When I say "activist history", I mean activist history. I think it's likely that gay activists published on the terms in gay magazines in the 70s. I don't think the terms appear in either Jack Nichols's GAY or the Advocate, but that's the sort of material culture and activist publication I'm referring to (I've been waiting to review others on microfilm and in my collection). Nichols and Lige Clarke published a lot of work that was purposefully activist on Whitman and other historical figures - I think "activist" is just a descriptor of their publishing intentions, not a naughty word that makes their work less important (or for that matter less reliable). To the extent it matters, I don't think Wade is an activist source. Urve (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a useful clarification, however it still means that bloodofox only thinks the history of activists is a valid topic here, and that no evidence that he thinks the queer history of Old English is a valid topic of inquiry has been offered. Loki (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Carcharoth.

Riposte97 (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Considerations: (a) the timespan involved; (b) the comparative mildness of the "incivility" alleged (I am honestly surprised that some—most?—of these "incidents" were even considered worth digging up; "I'd recommend you stop advancing this nonsense & become acquainted with the topic first", or something like that—especially when in fact it indeed turned out to be nonsense—is beyond the pale? surely, any compos mentis adult can handle this level of "antagonism"!), and (c) the fact that bloodofox is acknowledged to have been correct in almost every case (yes, being right is not a shield against rebuke for being uncivil; sure; but in the end, one knowledgeable editor who's sometimes sharp on the Talk-pages serves the real purpose here—i.e., building an encyclopedia—better than double the number of polite-but-confused ones... and I notice bloodofox's interlocutors have not always been so polite themselves; although, in some cases, one could argue that they were merely responding in kind, it escalates tension all the same).

Himaldrmann (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as unearned. I do not like longstanding editors getting away with behavior that would get new editors blocked, and make no mistake that description applies to Bloodfox. But it also applies to a lot of users, and there are far worse examples than this that have not been sanctioned or been given slap-on-the-wrist blocks. Dronebogus (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  isn't that purely an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? "We shouldn't sanction a person, even though they've done things that are sanctionable and will continue to do them unless we sanction them, because other people have done worse things without getting sanctioned" seems to imply that we have to go find enough of the "worse offenders" and sanction them before we take the step here in front of us that we'd agree improves the project. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It also seems to imply that if an editor has been around long enough to earn some sort of seniority or "tenured" badge that they don't have to abide by the same code of conduct that the "untenured" editors have to adhere to. This is a double standard, no? Netherzone (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you've misread something.

  Himaldrmann (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I said that I would read the evidence, and I read the evidence. This is an editor who is habitually uncivil and tendentious, and has usually avoided sanctions by usually being right, but being right isn't enough. Then I voted in favor of a six-month block, and against a warning as being meaningless, and then didn't come back to this proposal. Then I made the mistake of checking the recent contribution history of bloodofox, and saw a three-and-one-half-week case of ANI flu, or disappearing act. Some editors demonstrate that they are net negatives by bludgeoning a discussion about their conduct. That is harmful. But running away from the encyclopedia (not just from the conduct discussion) is also net negative behavior. We should allow bloodofox to continue to stay away after this discussion is over. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose bloodofox is a voice of reason on a pedia that is frequently gamed. Perfect is the enemy of good, and Blood is a good editor. 107.115.5.77 (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though I think it's going to be a close-run thing, I believe it is likely that a complete CBAN will be found to be a bridge too far for too many community members to allow a sufficient consensus for that sanction. On the other end of the spectrum, the GENSEX topic ban is far too narrow and would fail to restrict the behaviours the community is objecting to so strongly here in the large majority of instances. And even if the TBAN were aimed at subjects which are much more at the center of :bloodofox:'s editorial activity/disputes, I believe it would still be viewed as sending an insufficient message of community concern, so voluminous and serious are the infractions of policy, and so wide-spread have the impacts clearly been on so many contributors and community members, from just the evidence provided here.

So I suggest we try to keep our response within the framework of the escalation model of sanctions, but also make no bones about the fact that the issues here cannot be resolved with a warning or a slap on the wrist. Therefore I propose a six month community ban, non-appealable for the duration. Alternatively, we could leave open a community appeal after, say, four months, but permit no administrative appeal. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. Let's let the community move on and give :boo: a well-justified break, followed by the shortest amount of WP:ROPE on return. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I remain unconvinced that this will be enough, honestly, but agree with Snow Rise that this seems to be where the consensus is -- and it would be nice to have the opportunity to eat my words if it does indeed lead to a change in behaviour. I think any block/ban has to be general or almost entirely general, given the widespread nature of the issue and how it has moved between different topic areas, namespaces, and so on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and I would have opposed this even if I agreed with it, because this is getting ridiculous (and completely unfair to bloodofox). You can't just keep flinging random sanctions at the wall when it looks like the previous one may fail, in the hope that one of them will stick. Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, we have a situation where most people in the cban discussion see a problem, but some are uncomfortable with a cban. It seems pretty natural that a couple alternatives would be proposed. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, BK, but what exactly do you find to be "random" in the proposal? I believe I laid out a very specific and particularized argument for how this addresses the massive amount of community concerns expressed here without relying on a sledgehammer. Your implication that I am somehow trying to ramrod a proposal through with multiple bites at the apple is not only off-base, it is (bluntly speaking) reactionary and lazy. If you had actually taken the time to read my previous contributions to this thread, you would have seen that not only have I opposed both of the previous proposals, but I actually spent a lot of time over the days before Tamzin's first proposal trying to mitigate community ire at :boo: and urge restraint, despite that position being deeply unpopular.

I feel this proposal balances community concerns against the best chance of retaining :boo:'s contributions in the longterm. If there was a more minimal sanction that I thought the community would have accepted, I very likely would have chosen that. But speaking plainly, if you think its realistic to expect this thread to end in no sanction, I'd suggest you take another review of the discussion above. I have not the slightest of issues with anyone opposing this sanction. But for you to imply I made this proposal flippantly, or as part of scattershot attempt to nail :boo: with a sanction no matter what, despite the amount of effort I put in to try to prevent a worst case scenario for them...well, that I do take exception to. I tend to expect much more careful commentary from you, honestly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you disagree. I didn't suggest your proposal was "flippant" at all, but when we're on the third possible sanction here (one which actually isn't that different from a CBAN, considering that they are appealable after 6 months), it is unsurprising that I might get the idea that people are looking for "some sanction that might get traction", rather than "whether that sanction is reasonable". Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a sanction 'gets traction' and there's consequent consensus for it then it is, in a consensus-based system, inherently 'reasonable', no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how many attempts do we need? Three is already too many, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying but struggling to understand this line of reasoning. Three different people have proposed three different solutions: that seems very standard in a discussion of how to solve a problem, be that a content dispute, workshopping a policy, or so on. It's pretty clear in both discussions above that the consensus is towards some sort of sanction -- there are one or two people advocating that the behaviour in question is fine as long as there really are problems with the articles in question, and possibly one or two suggesting a stern, logged warning, but nearly all objections to a CBAN are of the form "we need a block/ban, but it should be lighter than this". Similarly, nearly all objections to a TBAN are "this is too little". Concluding that the right approach is therefore to offer no sanction seems strange to me. I do see the (commendable) empathy that sitting through an ANI thread where your colleagues debate your shortcomings is a hugely unpleasant experience, but (as SchroCat says) the same empathy needs to be extended to those on the receiving end of the very behaviour that started this all off. Unless we have good reason to think that Bloodofox's behaviour will change without formal administrative action, letting them go without that is effectively inflicting the equally unpleasant -- if not more so -- experience of dealing with a repeatedly uncivil editor upon other members of the community. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make myself clear, if someone had suggested three different sanctions in the first place and said to people "which of these (or none) do you think reasonable?", I don't think that is an issue. It was simply that reading this thread, we had the CBAN which has headed towards a lack of consensus, and then the TBAN was tried (that went down poorly), and then we had this one. I am sure you will understand on that basis why I made that oppose comment above, even if you disagree with it. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I understand the rationale, though I can't share your view of its merits. At any rate, thank you for clarifying it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, what I take exception to in your response is "You can't just keep flinging random sanctions at the wall when it looks like the previous one may fail, in the hope that one of them will stick.". I didn't support either of the previous two proposals (in fact, I objected to both of them as unproductive), and arguably no one put more time and energy into trying to prevent a hasty or excessive sanction over course of this discussion. I believe the proposal is the most minimal sanction that can be reasonably said to align with the community consensus/sentiment expressed above. That is why I made it. Not to sandbag :boo:. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any fundamental disagreement. We heard a cry of burn the witch and some people didn't like that. Then we got duck the witch and some people didn't like that. Now we've got put the witch in jail and see if that makes her stop witching and most people seem to like that. I can only see that as consensus building. It could have been neater, but that's the breaks... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my comments above. I don't see this as unfair to BOO: he's had a couple of blocks, a visit to AE and a TBAN. This is also about the 'fairness' to other users who have to deal with him and who have faced an extremely unpleasant reception (cf the Braucherei thread). This at least covers the relevant, multiple areas of his disruptive manner of interaction while stops well short of the nuclear option of the CBAN. - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I cannot find any reason not to oppose this. This is a good solution for the long term issues with the editor. Orientls (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with Black Kite's sentiment, but I also think this is closest to what policy dictates. As I said before, bloodofox should've gotten a short, preventative block when they made (yet another) personal attack here three days ago, but they didn't. At this point we, the community, just have to admit that no uninvolved admin has the guts to block this longtime editor for personal attacks and we'll have to do it ourselves. Toadspike [Talk] 13:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh. A cban is typically appealable in 6 months. With so many people, even those of us supporting a cban, agreeing that Bloodofox does good content work, he is a solid case for an appeal. The only difference between this sanction and a cban, then, is a cban requires communication of understanding of the problem and committing to doing better. Why is this way preferable, other than "escalating blocks for escalating blocks' sake"? Support as distant second choice — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there are a couple of ways in which this proposal was tailored to be less onerous than a CBAN. For one thing, its terms have the block ending automatically at six month, not setting the clock for appeal there. While it's true that most CBANs are appealable after six months (and sometimes one year), in practice I don't think it would go well for :boo:. The numbers and the sentiments here do not suggest that such an appeal would be easy going.

  There's also the factor that :boo: has struggled to produce a substantial mea culpa throughout this discussion. I believe their pride is hurt here and that if, after being blocked, they also had to make a detailed statement detailing what needed to change in their approach, they might just decide to stay off the project. That is not how I'd like to see this resolve, so I crafted for an option that would allow them to hopefully take the community's concerns on board over the duration of their enforced break, but that would also not cause them to suffer further bruised pride on returning. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This makes sense and hopefully will both get the message across about civility and retain an editor valued for their expertise. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. With regret I have to agree with UC and SchroCat. Other editors shouldn't have to put up with opposition so vehement. Tim riley talk 14:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Black Kite. Blocking without the right of appeal seems against the spirit of our philosophy; even LTAs get the right. And I can't see anything in WP:BLOCK or WP:APPEAL that justifies—or, for that matter, allows—overriding policy. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fortuna, I don't want this to come off as glib, but I don't know a better way to say it: this is the standard policy. Almost every WP:CBAN you see includes the language "this ban is first appealable after six months", or something to that effect; the only way this proposal differs from that usual standard is by making the end of this CBAN automatic at that point: that is to say, a much lower threshold to ending the CBAN, not a higher one. The polices you cite (WP:BLOCK and WP:APPEAL), are only sufficient in themselves to describe administrative blocks. Under WP:CBAN, the community has always had the ability to set extra conditions on preventing unblocks, and this authority is regularly exercised at ANI. The remedy for the blocked party if they think the community has been unreasonable in applying this prerogative is appeal to the Arbitration Commitee (see WP:UNBAN). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I've only ever had productive interactions with Bloodofox on Wikipedia. As far as I can see he is right on the merits in just about every dispute he's been involved with. He's done a lot of great article work. That's not the only thing that matters but it's not nothing either. He could be more diplomatic, it's true, but he's not really ever been blocked before and six months seems like a lot. Haukur (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as they can just sit out the six months and potentially go right back to their behavior that brought them here in the first place. What is needed is an acknowledgement of the concerns raised here, and a clear statement that they will strive to do better, which would naturally be part of any request to be unbanned per the CBAN proposal. They have been an editor for 20 years, so they obviously know they should be following our editorial and behavioral policies and guidelines. So in my view, this proposal looks like we are just kicking the proverbial can down the road. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (involved): I prefer a longer sanction. Bloodofox makes content disputes more complicated—doesn't provide sources; constant implied expertise; won't participate in dispute resolution; derides and discredits anyone who doesn't agree with him; inflammatory as a feature and not a bug (i.e., he wants people to get mad so he can say stuff like this). His approach makes a venue like ANI significantly less effective, as the previous ANI close shows. It makes basic incivility and battlegrounding look chivalrous. Any outcome that passes the buck back to the community, including potentially new editors, harms editor retention and thus our content. I don't like the "escalating sanctions" argument for this reason: he benefits from an ANI model that makes resolving complex content disputes hard, if not impossible, notwithstanding issues dealing with "authority" figures here (i.e., the same reason for the previous Ignore All Rules unblock).

• A brief aside: I looked through some old posts and saw loads of attacks (and responses, frequently from now-retired editors) that could easily be in this thread. But—and being frank—looking through the early contribs made me sympathetic to anyone suggesting ArbCom review. Edits like this or this affect my interpretation of Tamzin's analysis regarding bloodofox's culture war-ry "all trans history is activism" take, attacks aimed at two publicly queer editors, etc. White supremacists, Nazis, and the far-right love Old Norse stuff (e.g., Soldiers of Odin; Odinism; Asatru Folk Assembly). These are enough to make me think, yeah, maybe this needs more investigation.

Anyway, I'm not that active at ANI. I've been a participant in, I think, 3-4 threads. I don't know how much grace we provide on the basis of process. That is probably why I don't understand why we are trying quite hard to retain an editor who actively resents collaboration via Talk (cf. this and this). Atrocious conduct that is, certainly over the past year, deeply net negative, and getting worse. Why extend a process-based courtesy to an editor who provides it to nobody else (i.e., ignoring 19 suggestions of dispute resolution across the FAR & Talk)? Regrettably I don't doubt disruption will continue given he is increasingly outraged every year. After 20 years of his tactics being effective I can't fathom why anyone thinks that it change because of a 6-month time out. Obviously I don't oppose it if this is what the community decides there is consensus for. If a CBAN is nuclear, a 6-month block is standing in the hall until class is over. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to protest your aside here. Two 2005 diffs in which Bloodofox fails to rise above the then-standards of Wikipedia in including unreferenced essayistic content, and shows an embarrassing lack of awareness of the gravity of a charge of nazi symbolism in Germany. Used to insinuate that Bloodofox and all who "love Old Norse stuff" may have something further to do with "White supremacists, Nazis, and the far-right". That's a smear by association that doesn't pass the smell test, and I will not let it pass without objection. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, dredging up edits from twenty years ago. Yes, it's a smear. Carlstak (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's not enough evidence of a pattern if no one goes back far enough in the edit history, but if someone does, it's a smear? -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your words, not mine. Carlstak (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no? I haven't called this either of those things. -- asilvering (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say " it's not enough evidence of a pattern if no one goes back far enough in the edit history, but if someone does, it's a smear". Your "So" implies that perhaps that was my intended meaning, as you well know. Consider the possibility that I thought it was a bit much to dredge up edits from twenty years ago, and insinuating that Bloodofox and all who "love Old Norse stuff" may have something further to do with "White supremacists, Nazis, and the far-right" is a smear. Carlstak (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlstak, I think you should be reading @ImaginesTigers' post with the knowledge that they themselves have a significant interest in Old Norse stuff. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context is everything. Must say, seems odd that you're addressing only me—I was affirming what Yngvadottir said. 03:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Would you mind quoting bloodofox's culture war-ry "all trans history is activism" take? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary, see Tamzin's post at the top of the cban subthread. -- asilvering (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read it. What did BOO say that amounts to that? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary, I'll quote the relevant section from @Tamzin's post: He thinks Wade, a professional medievalist whose paper appears in the Routledge Handbook of Trans Literature, is an activist source because he cites Leslie Feinberg. This is, transparently, an objection that a queer editor has cited a queer scholar who cited a queer thinker to analyze queer medieval history. The implication is clear: There is no queer medieval history. Anyone who writes about it is actually promoting an agenda. bloodofox has referred to Erik Wade, a professional medievalist writing in his professional capacity for a literature handbook by an academic press, as an activist source. -- asilvering (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so he called a scholar an activist for citing an activist. He didn’t say anything like that all transgender history is activism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you've essentially said the same thing twice though. Saying that a historian of trans people should never cite anyone who's done activism for trans people is like saying a historian of Judaism should never cite anyone who's done activism against antisemitism. It's both an impossible standard and makes less than zero sense. Loki (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that a historian of trans people should never cite anyone who's done activism for trans people

Good lord, can anyone advocating for a ban here do so without such distortions? Bloodofox did not say this. If you have to construct these wild paraphrases and can’t pull any quotes to support them, your case for sanctions is too weak. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Loki said, and also: when bloodofox says Wade – an academic writing for an academic publisher – is an "activist", what exactly is Wade supposed to be an activist for? For queer visibility? That's where you run up against the heavy implication that under this standard, any acknowledgement of queer medieval history is "activism", not real history. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really the right place to have this discussion, but the difference here would be between a specialist encyclopedia (which this is) and (say) an article or chapter on this topic in a much broader history book. It requires an understanding of how the academic publishing model works in the humanities and related topics. Wade absolutely is an academic writing for an academic publisher, but the whole point of a specialist encyclopedia on this topic is to increase the visibility and discourse on the topic (which is a good thing, for the avoidance of doubt). I would not have used the word 'activist' but I would take note of the framing used by Wade and look for other writing on the topic to see what other views there are. This is not an easy thing to do sometimes. It is something that in theory the editors of the encyclopedia are meant to do, but it is not always possible to assess if that happens. Sometimes, then, you have to look to reviews of the publication (here, one of a large number of encyclopedias produced by Routledge) to see how the wider academic community received it (if they paid it that level of attention). Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a single scholar an activist implies that an entire field is activism? And heavily, at that? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin's analysis looks on the money to me. Wade is (with apologies to him) a run-of-the-mill queer scholar of the Early Middle Ages; the Routledge Handbook is about as representative an example of the field as one could pick; citing thinkers within a movement but outside academia is completely standard, as I said at the FAR, in this and similar fields such as feminist, Marxist and so on historiography. Bloodofox could have produced evidence to say that one of these was untrue, but chose to simply repeat the claim that endorsing the ideas of Leslie Feinberg -- and let's be clear, Feinberg is not a protester on Twitter, but one of the defining figures of the field of gender studies -- makes the piece "activist scholarship". Even then, I'm concerned that arguing against sanctions here are missing the point. The outcomes of the content dispute(s) in which Bloodofox showed uncivil and uncollegial behaviour are completely irrelevant. Even if Bloodofox were completely in the right, that is not enough. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in the interest of not letting perfect be the enemy of good here, but it's a second choice to a full CBAN. If this has been an issue since 2018 through multiple sanctions I do not have confidence that bloodofox would ever voluntarily stop. Loki (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Loki: Regarding 2018, I can see a comment from 2011, from Barsoomian (retired) that honestly could be in this thread at Talk:Thor's archive: from bloodofox's disparaging comments, since you are backing him up, I assumed your shared his reasoning (chain diffs), and they were indeed backing him up at great length. Looks like they were opposing the inclusion of any TV or film because Barsoomian was biased against pre-WW1 sources (?). Certainly looks like the same pattern going back further. Looks like tag teaming to me, honestly, with a contributor who is in this very thread on his side. I believe the problem goes back much further than 2018. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a pertinent 14 year old discussion. Not sure I would buy the "tag-teaming" accusation, or your description of what happened there, though. As far as flinging linguini to the wall goes, one could also wonder why this recent comment of yours in the very FAR which led to the filing of this request had to be revision deleted. Was it a policy violation, by any chance? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, if something has been revision deleted, its contents are not to be made public -- I can't imagine, therefore, that we tolerate people speculating about what may have been in it, since the person who wrote it can't explain themselves. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, that said, admins or the person who made the edit could say whether it indeed fit WP:CRD. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - based on my rationale in the CBAN section; which they can appeal in 6 months. I think that is a better solution, however if that proposal does not achieve consensus, then I would support this block. Netherzone (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting here for clarity that this my second choice, based on the fact that the issue is not whether or not the editor is "right" about content, but rather about the ongoing battlegrounding and incivility in multiple venues across the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my explicit suggestion of this remedy above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - six months will be enough for Bloodofox to have a chance to adjust their attitude, while leaving open the door for more sanctions if necessary.

MiasmaEternal☎ 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Content-war PvP nonsense. Black Kite nails the situation above. Carrite (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as second choice compared to a CBAN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Second choice per Rhododendrites and PMC—although pedantically I'd argue that a community-imposed unappealable block is a ban, not just a block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's not appropriate to try and hamper the community as to when something can be appealed or not. No comment on whether a block or community ban may be appropriate - but trying to say that it is not appealable is an improper restriction on the future community. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my oppose in the CBan section and per the concerns raised by Black Kite (it used to be a principle to lay out alternatives at the start, rather than workshop as you go along, which can skew the discussion and polling). I am sure if, for example, evidence came to light of battleground behaviour by some of those supporting these proposals, then the community would want to revisit such a block. What is not being seen here is the views of the editors who have had productive interactions with Bloodofox, most of whom will not be aware of this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I don't actually think any of these are specifically tailored to preventing or reforming the conduct, which is largely incivility towards other editors over a range of topics. In my mind, either it's unfixable and we indef, or we have a sanction where we try to remedy the problem. I haven't interacted with them enough to be at the "enough is enough" stage that some of the other users are, and I think at this point I'd be happier with a formal warning that an indef is on the table if this doesn't improve, along with a limited, possibly voluntary short term topic ban for some of the topics listed above just to cool things down a little bit. That being said, I'm not against this. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all these repeated requests feel like the Wikipedia equivalent of barratry. After reading the FAR I can understand bloodofox's frustration. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on my rationale in the CBAN proposal vote. Also not impressed with the stream of proposed sanctions being procured as the previous one approaches failure. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to make one last effort to set the record straight here, and then I'm washing my hands of this entire mess of a discussion and its multi-directional ABF, and let the chips fall as they may for both :boo: and the community. Because this is about the fourth time that someone has implied that this proposal is part of an effort to "get" :boo: at all costs, a fly-by characterization that does not even remotely reflect what is going on here, as would be immediately obvious to anyone who did their due diligence in reviewing the discussion before !voting. Here's what actually happened and what motivated this proposal:

  First off, I am not involved in any of the underlying disputes and have no axe to grind against :boo:. On the contrary, for the first few days of this discussion, I was the only one making consistent efforts to resolve this matter without a sanction. I attempted to build a bridge between :boo: and their accusers, hoping that concerns could be addressed on both sides, and I have argued repeatedly for WP:ROPE. In the first few days, Yngvadottir and I were the only advocates for restraint as dozens of (reasonably) irate editors flooded the discussion to share their own stories of frustrating run-ins with :boo:. While sympathetic to those complaints, I still didn't see any reason why the concerns couldn't be addressed more constructively than with a sanction.

  However, a meeting of the minds proved impossible because :boo: was more than a little WP:IDHT, and the complainants were unyielding in wanting concrete action to be taken. After a series of back-and-forths with individual editors, I decided to let the matter drop, because I did not wish to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion with my appeals on :boo:'s behalf. Because at the end of the day, the complaints had merit and I felt that if I hadn't managed to convince anyone to endorse a lighter touch at that point, I wasn't going to.

  I then was uninvolved in the thread for about a day and a half. When I next checked on it, I discovered the situation had escalated to sanction proposals, and very severe proposals at that. The full CBAN proposal felt excessive to me, given the lack of previous stepped-sanctions, so I opposed it. Likewise, I felt the TBAN proposal was poorly-considered and opposed that too. I made this proposal hoping it would be adopted instead of the (still popular at the time) CBAN. Far from being an attempt to get :boo: at any cost (as one editor implied despite all evidence to the contrary, with others following suit) it was meant to be a more measured alternative. I specifically chose the least severe sanction I thought might be adopted, given the tone of the discussion at that time. If anyone thinks I relished the idea of proposing a block for a veteran editor a week before their 20th anniversary on the project, they can very much think again. My primary aim was to throw a significant bone to those who wanted action while still keeping a subject matter expert from being CBANNED to the tune of an outright indef. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, bluntly speaking, not only are comments implying that this was a ruthless effort to corner :boo: completely and obviously false, but those arguing that there is something odd or inappropriate in the procedural history of this discussion are also completely off-base. There have been, at a minimum, many hundreds of discussions at ANI over the years that have included three or more proposals made in rapid succession. It is not in the remotest sense atypical for a discussion here to proceed through multiple stages where the range of appropriate responses is narrowed to something the community can agree upon.

  Nor is :boo: a victim here that needs to be shielded from mob mentality. I have consistently felt the best solution here would be rapprochement between :boo: and those they have rubbed wrong, rather than a sanction. But neither did the volume and intensity of the complaints against them in this discussion come out of nowhere. A substantial amount of evidence has been presented that :boo: has for years deployed a combination of aggression and gatekeeping in their rhetoric during disputes. That does have to change, or they won't have much of a future here, regardless of how this discussion ends. Again, I'd be perfectly comfortable with a sanction-less result to this discussion--it's what I advocated for from the start. But anyone who implies, intentionally or otherwise, that this discussion is part of a meritless witch-hunt against :boo: is doing them absolutely no favors: it is bar-none the very last thing they need to hear from us if we are going to keep them on-project and benefit from their knowledge and contributions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW I - and I suspect many, many others, saw this proposal as a sensible response to the far-too heavy CBAN and off-target topic ban. It's a reasonable and sensible compromise and has garnered broad support, more votes than oppose and (IMHO) stronger reasoning from support voters. There is a wide sense that something needs to happen. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh. I didn’t imply any of this. I said I’m not impressed with the stream of sanctions that emerges again with every successive failure, which is true. I didn’t say anything about you, because it’s not a personal comment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but intentionally or not, that does imply that there was a conscious objective in this proposal to create a back-up plan to make sure :boo: got sanctioned. Which was really the opposite of what was going on here: I was trying to prevent an indefinite CBAN by proffering instead the most limited alternative sanction I thought the community might accept instead. The CBAN discussion was not "approaching failure" at the time that I made this proposal: it had strong support. It still does, but at the time support was more uniform. This proposal was offered as an alternative to minimize the consequences for :boo:, not to a cast a wider net for them.

  Now, I'm happy to AGF that your intended meaning was (somehow) not to imply that the proposal was a redundancy to make sure that :boo: got blocked, if you say so. But if I do that, I must also ask you to realize that such a reading is unavoidable, given what you wrote. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see my oppose to the CBAN proposal above. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - Having read the history of personal attacks that turn content disputes into conduct, something needs to be done. There is no right answer, and this is a less wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• support as a compromise. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 01:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't like the idea of introducing time limited blocks that are unappealable. Editors who are blocked can appeal during the block, editors who are community banned aren't put on the naughty step for a time out. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • note for the closer: AD and a few other voters oppose the no-appeal clause while not commenting on the substance of the block – I'd suggest that the no-appeal clause be treated as severable from the block itself, if those opposes would drag this towards a no consensus close. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For clarity I'm neutral on any block or tban separately proposed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose IDK why this would be expected to pass if the proposal above it failed _pbp 03:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The above proposal failed largely because people viewed it as too narrow, so it should go without saying why a broader sanction would be more amenable to many. Do you have a substantive objection, or is this oppose merely a procedural misunderstanding? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, unfortunately, given bloodofox's lack of later participation, which IMO should not be rewarded. Civility is one of the easiest things to fix, in theory. Really just committing to accepting that as well as accepting that bloodofox's "opponents" are not actually demons out to destroy scholarship with lies would have gone a long way. As that was not forthcoming, there's no other choice than here. I think bloodofox has a lot to offer and did a lot of good work on Wikipedia, but this level of incivility and ownership just is not worth the cost. SnowFire (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This also has nothing to do with bloodofox's conduct himself, but I have to say that the "oppose" rationales on claims of "too many sanctions proposed" make absolutely zero sense, and should be entirely discarded as not engaging with the very real conduct problem here. It'd be one thing if a single editor was proposing five different sanctions, but these were proposed by three different editors, and one proposed sanction was very quickly shot down. What exactly are people who support an escalating sanction to convey the seriousness of the matter to do? Mind control the earlier proposers to only have proposed the remedy they support? SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to agree with a six month ban as a compromise, and am really pretty befuddled by all the oppose votes that ultimately stem from different people having different ideas on how to resolve the same issue. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose non-appealable sanctions, period. Levivich (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose What Levivich said. Carlstak (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and support warnings as my comments indicate below. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Since when do we impose non-appealable sanctions in cases like this? This process is beginning to devolve into something I don't like.

Riposte97 (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose, per my reasoning in opposing the other sanctions: in essence, (a) placing "somewhat abrasive Talk-page interactions" as the numerator over "significant & erudite contributions" as the denominator, or anything similar (problem comments / total edits, uncivil interactions / time, etc.) results in a pretty favorable ratio here, seems t'me; (b) "abrasive" might merit a warning of "hey be more nicer please", at worst, but nothing I've looked at so far seems to warrant unappealable sanction (I mean, 'snot like we're talking horrible slurs & X-rated vulgarities being hurled at every opportunity, vel sim.!); and (c) "being correct is not defense enough" is probably a good policy & I support it—but being correct, contributing significantly in re the main purpose of our encyclopedia, is not nothin', neither: one abrasive domain-expert will nevertheless serve the purported function of Wikipedia more-so than some larger number of polite-but-confused editors, it seems to me. (Of course, "polite and expert" is even better.)

I'd rather not lose folks like bloodofox or @Ermenrich, since I often gain from reading their discussions (& edits).

(It also sort of seems like there's some personal history here, between the major players; I don't know if this should actually be considered too important—I mean, it might be said that's how one often becomes aware of a "problem user" in the first place, right—but... I dunno, conflict → several users on the one "side" start three different attempted sanctions one after t'other... I don't know if I like the optics, I think is how the kids say it these days.

(I was certainly appalled when I first encountered this situation—it seemed ridiculously thin-skinned of several involved, esp. as I'd only personally ever seen what I consider very minor abrasiveness from bloodofox (and some of it was fairly understandable, too)—but after reading through more links, I am more sympathetic to the "Support"-ers than I was initially. Not enough so to not Oppose, though—and there are some attempted distortions I've noticed here & there; e.g., "[bloodofox says that] a historian of trans people should never cite anyone who's done activism for trans people", except he never said that at all... that sort of thing just makes me feel like some personal animus has crept in here, Iunno.)

Himaldrmann (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose non-appealable sanctions, full stop.Halbared (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose clearly meant as a punishment/“cooldown” block, especially since it’s non-appealable— meaning it’s not so much intended to say “you can come back if you promise to stop doing this” but rather “you must serve out this block as punishment for doing this”. A temporary block is IMO only useful if there’s an urgent reason like an editor not dropping the WP:STICK during a dispute. A long-term pattern of subpar behavior is not that. The only appropriate solutions to that are an indef (which is disproportionate) or a Tban (which already failed). Dronebogus (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with caveats; community bans are by consensus and therefore, per WP:CCC, I don't think it's actually possible for us to place a truly unappealable ban, only one for which the bar to appeal is very high. That said, per my comments below, the behavior here is serious enough (and the total lack of any indication that things will improve, over an extended period of time, severe enough) that a block is called for, and I'm unwilling to have that fail over continued procedural quibbling, especially because the point is most likely moot - given their comments above, it seems extremely unlikely that bloodofox would appeal meaningfully. --Aquillion (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above discussions.--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (uninvolved editor) Having read the comments, diffs, and numerous instances of discussions presented on either side, I firmly believe that subject-matter expertise does not fundamentally override the persistent lack of civility and good-faith towards other editors. It appears that they have not shown an ability for "self-correction and heeding lessons," as well as "genuine interest and improvement." per WP:HERE. A warning is woefully insufficient and discussions indicate that it will likely have no effect at all. Support per nom and Tamzin's comment in CBAN topic. WeWake (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling out a couple of procedural points here, mainly centred around awareness and visibility of these proposals to both the wider community and to User:Bloodofox.

• (1) The section header that shows up for users using the mobile phone version of Wikipedia simply says "User:Bloodofox". It says nothing about a community ban. This section was added several days later by Tamzin. The collapsed ANI threads showing on mobile view unfortunately allow community ban proposals like this to end up 'hidden' to the subset of the community who cannot be bothered to uncollapse the thread. This can skew the polling.
• (2) User:Bloodofox has not contributed since the comments made here on 12 June. The community ban proposal was made on 14 June. They may be unaware that a community ban discussion is taking place.
• (3) Tamzin does not appear to have notified Bloodofox (either by ping or talk page message) of the Community Ban proposal.

There is a reason why this happens in sometimes chaotic and sprawling ANI discussions. This is both why I avoided ANI for many years and why I think at one point it was proposed that community ban discussions needed to take place at WP:AN rather than ANI but I may be way out of date here. Anyway, I hate editing on my phone, so if anyone can help work out what to do here (e.g. leave a talk page notification for Bloodofox and maybe adjust the main header to reflect that a community ban discussion has resulted from the initial discussion), that would help a lot. I won't do this myself as I am not 100% sure what the current procedure is for community ban discussions regarding such notifications and visibility. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged BOO in the edit summary of the ban proposal. I can't very well control their decision to not edit, but there are no procedural defects here. BOO has been extended every courtesy we extend to anyone else nominated for a ban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like an effort to try to invalidate a consensus-based discussion based on nitpicking that doesn't even have a policy basis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is because community bans are a serious sanction that there are procedures and guidance that should be followed. Could you please engage in good faith with what I said. How would you feel if you took a break and came back to find it had escalated to this? Carcharoth (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably not have opted to take a break during a lengthy discussion about my behavior, so as to ensure that nothing important was missed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm-hmm. ANI flu does exist, but so do other events in people's lives. I have learnt to always err on the side of not making assumptions about why someone hasn't come back to a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's ANI flu or a freak emergency – I think bloodofox has probably recognized that they can't improve their position by protesting more than they already have, and they're not planning on admitting wrongdoing. I think they're watching this discussion and would have been aware of the CBAN proposal with or without a ping, but they've taken their hands off the keyboard. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person who introduced the "take a break" phrasing was you, Carcharoth. If you recall, the question as asked was "How would you feel if you took a break...", and my response was to say I would not have taken one. Please don't try to frame this as though I was making any kind of assumption about why bloodofox was not currently editing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I thought it was obvious that the phrasing "How would you feel if you took a break and came back to find it had escalated to this?" was actually meant to prompt consideration and empathy with Bloodofox, not to be a question literally about how you would feel. The phrase "take a break" was not intended to be precise, but there is every possibility that is what this is. An attempt to walk away for a few days from a heated situation. No way to tell. Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you found my clarification helpful. We wouldn't want someone reading this thread to think you were accusing me of making assumptions based on phrasing you introduced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lie, Carcharoth, this is pretty cringe. There are no procedural issues here. You haven't cited a single guideline, just your feeling that the guy you like deserves special treatment. Be an adult and step back like the rest of us, and let the community reach whatever consensus it reaches. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make this personal. I would do the same for any editor where I noticed this (you included). I genuinely believe that there will be people currently actively editing who will have missed this discussion for the reasons I give. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I look forward to seeing you do so for ~100% of CBAN proposals in the future, then. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor where I notice this. So not 100%, no. I did ask you not to make this personal. I am still at a loss as to why you have said "the guy you like" (no idea where you get that from) and "be an adult". I am not aware of any past history I have with Bloodofox (but might be forgetting). You, rightly, disclosed your past interactions in your post three days ago when you proposed the community ban. I went to that diff to check whether the ping had worked, and noticed that you pinged User:Generalissima as well. That is absolutely the right thing to do (they started the thread), but the more I have been thinking about this the more it makes me uneasy. The past history here feels all wrong. I would have had no problem with someone uninvolved proposing the ban, but it does feel too easy to draw lines here connecting events. It looks bad, even though you disclosed the mentor-mentee relationship. Disclosing something like that does not mean it can simply be discounted. Anyway, you left the closer (and those reading this, not all of whom will be commenting) to make their own judgement on that. I will post something about the timings below and leave this here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No past history with Bloodofox? You're on the same side in the content dispute that immediately precipitated this. We could also get into your recent Wikipediocracy posts about trans issues (an account you disclose on-wiki), which were an explicit response to my criticism at WP:A/R/C of people who push the POV you favor, and immediately preceded your showing up here to oppose my proposal to ban someone who wants to remove or downplay coverage of trans history. So yes, I've disclosed my bias here. Have you disclosed yours? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the involvement in the immediate history was obvious. Yes, I have posted in that discussion on that talk page, and I have posted at the FAR here. I don't think it is helpful to characterise what is taking place there as "sides" (that is battleground language). It is more nuanced than that (I am coming round to the viewpoint that Wade's conclusions on Feinberg should be explicitly mentioned in the 'Bæddel and bædling' article). What I meant by no past history, is that (responding to your "the guy you like" comment) I have not had (to my knowledge) any extensive prior interactions with Bloodofox, though I might have done, as it is difficult to remember everything. I had forgotten about that 10-year-old page you found in my userspace. Trip down memory lane. Thank you! (It really might be best to leave this here.) Carcharoth (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tamzin. I missed that you had pinged Bloodofox in your edit summary. I personally would have left a talk page notice, but whether you think a ping is sufficient is up to you. Carcharoth (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to disagree with the same person twice in 10 minutes, but making sure that an editor who is being proposed for a ban is aware of the fact seems praiseworthy to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't have minded an inquiry as to "Hey did you ever notify BOO of the ban thread?" I'm objecting to an entire separate subsection alleging procedural irregularities, 1/3 of which was a valid concern but based on a faulty premise and 2/3 of which is complete nonsense (almost all CBAN proposals happen under level-3 headings, and are never delayed just because someone gets ANI flu). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth is certainly correct on the mobile point. I was alarmed to open this thread after a couple of days by chance, and see that the complaint had progressed to CBAN and other proposals. That's not an attack on Tamzin at all, but I will perhaps suggest a corrective to the mobile dev team. Riposte97 (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more (hopefully final point): I believe the 72 hours given in WP:CBAN runs from the point Tamzin put up the proposal (at 03:20, 14 June 2025 UTC)? The RfC from 2020 linked there (increasing the minimum duration from 24 hours to 72 hours) is interesting reading. I was reading that to see what the general feeling on this was then. I also wasn't imagining it that WP:AN is the "preferred" venue, but I have seen enough ANI threads evolve into CBAN discussions to know that the ideal rarely happens in practice, including giving the person facing the ban a chance to respond, but I am sure whoever closes this will be able to address that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:bloodofox is warned that comments like:

• "If you can't function on even the most basic level on Wikipedia, then maybe spend your time doing something else." [1]
• "obnoxious ... topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about" [2]
• calling editors censors ("would-be censors" [3], "I encourage any editor to aggressively push back at any attempts at censorship, which is exactly what this is." [4])
• callings editors "activists" [5]
• bludgeoning and aggressively doubling down on accusations of RGW [6] [7], "RGW crusades" [8], "Wikipedia editors who call out and reject clear examples of WP:RGW are helping the project and should be commended for the effort, while attempts at WP:RGW should be aggressively rooted out." [9], "That's an explicit attempt at WP:RGW and should see hard pushback." [10], "No, this is about as clear a case of WP:RGW I've seen and I will highlight it." [11]
• "If this is how you're operating on this site, someone needs to comb through your other edits." [12]

...are violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and admins are encouraged to block for any further violations.

• Support as proposer. (I sympathize with :boo:'s request for specific diffs, so I've listed some that I think are clear policy violations; some of the diffs are repeated because they fall into multiple categories.) There's a well-known hole in our sanctions regime for civility, particularly for situations that fall in between "nothingburger" and "insta-ban." WP:ABANs, WP:TBANs, and WP:PBLOCKs aren't applicable here because the conduct isn't limited to a particular page or topic area. Blocks aren't appropriate now because WP:NOTPUNITIVE. The conduct isn't so extreme or frequent as to merit a WP:CBAN (IMO, but also in the opinion of about half the voters in the proposal above). But I don't think we should do nothing. The advantage of a warning, even though there have been previous warnings from years ago, is that it documents the policy violation, documents that it happened now and that the community agrees it was a policy violation, and gives admins clearer guidance to block if the policy violation is repeated. I hope it's not repeated, but if it is, I hope the warning will make it easier for an admin (or the community) to impose further preventative sanctions next time. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because again I don't think perfect should be the enemy of good. But I do think this isn't enough, so this is second choice for me behind any sanction with teeth. Loki (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I agree this is needed. Gentle persuasion isn't a great strategy for boiling frogs, but sometimes it can net you a fancy coat. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not going to oppose, but also reluctant to pretend a warning means anything at all regarding issues that have been raised by many people many times over many years in many topic areas, with one topic ban and formal warning in the past. I don't read any of the oppose !votes above as the sort that would have supported if only there were a second formal warning on the books. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For me, it's not the quantity of the warnings but the recency. (Of course people will have different views on how recent is recent enough.) Levivich (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Different views on how recent is recent enough indeed. The formal warning was in December 2023. How many days should this one be considered valid? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are making reference to this warning related to religious views in the Falun Gong AE case? It is of course still valid, but unless I'm mistaken nothing in evidence here shows a violation of that warning? This warning, on the other hand, is not narrowly construed as that one was, it covers all the civility and bludgeoning bases. Imagine that a closer concludes that the indef proposal does not have consensus but that the time-limited proposal does. There will be no grovel session to be closed with flashing hazards when editing rights are restored. Having a clearly-formulated broad warning written now does not seem to me to be a bad idea, whether further action is taken or not, as it clearly guides admins concerning what people who looked into this case thought was needed. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one -- the warning about personalizing disputes/speculating about motives coming out of a case based on fundamental civility/agf/npa stuff, sitting alongside the other [informal] pointers, suggestions, warnings, grievances, and pleas of the past, as well as a topic ban that was needed in an altogether separate area, not to mention two decades of experience with wikipolicy. But to your point: let's say, against all odds, we incredibly missed a diff and it turned out there had been a broad warning on civility issues in the past roughly identical to this one. Would you be switching to support on the cban above? If so, I concede this would be a nonzero outcome. Though I wouldn't blame you for declining to answer a hypothetical. Either way, I don't think I have anything else useful to add to this thread. Its trajectory makes me think my time tonight is better spent in articlespace. (turns out our articles on NYC mayoral candidates are pretty bad.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already here, I have not opposed the IAR unappealable time-limited block, admittedly in part because it saves sinking time into one (or more) of those often-grudgy appeals procedures. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

180-365; one or two a year is a reasonable allotment to any editor. Levivich (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's clear there's a problem. It's equally clear, that while most of us agree there is a problem, we don't agree about how to solve it. A logged warning that makes it clear a continuation of the problem will lead to more severe consequences seems a reasonable step we can take. It might not be enough but if it isn't we can address future issues when they arise. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose as an empty gesture. If we aren't going to do anything, we shouldn't do anything, rather than saying that we aren't going to do any thing now and might do something in a few months. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as weak sauce. bloodofox already knows that comments like those listed are against policy, and there is no requirement that admins block for future violations, but instead, left to their discretion. This proposal also lacks a provision that bloodofox acknowledge their problematic behavior and a commitment from him to do better. If previous warnings have already been ignored, then I have no expectation that this warning will curtail their chronic behavioral problems. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to change your and Robert's minds about this. I think that while this shouldn't be your first choice, you shouldn't oppose unless you actually think bloodofox has done nothing wrong at all here.

  The reason is, imagine how this goes next time bloodofox gets taken to ANI or AE. If we don't even warn him, he can easily say "Oh yeah, 6-12 months ago there was a big hullabaloo about my behavior, but there wasn't even consensus for a warning! Clearly that means the community didn't think I actually did anything wrong." And it's not even a bad argument! That usually is what that means!

  I think opposing sanctions solely because they're too weak is assuming something way past good faith of the next group to take this up. It's assuming that the next group to take this up will go through a ton of extra effort to preserve the exact intent of your !vote. You need to believe that, even after a consensus has been reached, the next group of people will read this entire long discussion down to your specific opinion and realize that you and a handful of others were opposing from the opposite side of normal, and furthermore that that will be taken as evidence that if this handful of people did not oppose than consensus *would* have been reached on a warning, and then even furthermore that they take that as equivalent to a warning. Why make all those assumptions when you can just support a warning? Loki (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sure. I support a cban because I believe this behaviour is chronic and will not change. If the behaviour indeed does not change, following this proposal, bloodofox will get to do it one more time, and then will be blocked. Late is better than never. So be it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as insufficient, though clearly preferable to doing literally nothing. The arguments in favour seem to badly misunderstand either/both the policy and the situation. We have ""No" personal attacks actually means that occasional personal attacks are fine, or that personal attacks are actually a good thing if the other editor is wrong/not very skilled. WP:CONLEVELS applies here -- a small group of editors can't overrule site-wide consensus, manifested in clearly-worded policy. We then have the line that this is somehow a first or early offence, and therefore sanctions should be applied next time -- when there is clear evidence of this behaviour happening over years (and far more than occasionally in the recent period), despite formal warnings from admins and topic bans, and without any acknowledgement of wrongdoing. This is next time. A warning in this situation would be clearly insufficient and send a worrying message about the standards of behaviour the community will tolerate. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to oppose or support, because I think this is a hollow proposal. A CBAN is best for the community given the range and quantity of harmful behaviors to multiple editors in multiple topics spanning across years, from 2016, 2018, 2020, 2023, 2024, 2025. The unacceptable behaviors are a chronic pattern, and there have already been various warnings. How much more harm is OK before it becomes not-OK? If there was some inkling that BOO was willing to take responsibility I might feel differently, but there's just radio silence. There have been no attempts apologize or efforts to see things through the other person's lens; no movement towards mending fences. Netherzone (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Why wasn't this just a 24 hour sitewide block for PAs (or whatever length deemed suitable), increasing incrementally for future violations all the way to indef? Seems like a nobrainer to me if we're looking to actually correct boo's behaviour. How on earth have they never been blocked for PAs, WP:FOC isn't advice, it's policy. Can admins just be bold please? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this or escalating blocks. I'm not convinced that a CBAN is merited in this case. I guess I don't see the civility issues as more disruptive than pushing FRINGE ideas. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buidhe, this presumes that everyone bloodofox has been nasty to has been pushing FRINGE ideas, which is far from the case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I certainly don't mean that that so I apologize if I was unclear. However, in some cases the editor was arguing against FRINGE editors and in those cases I see those editors as more disruptive. (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't mean any personal offense here Buidhe, but that is precisely the attitude which has enabled and encouraged the most problematic behaviour being discussed here, and similar from many of our most quarrelsome users in community spaces involving discussion of fringe content.

  For one thing, there is never going to be universal agreement (even among experienced, good-faith editors) whom the POV pushers are in FRINGE spaces, so the notion that one should get a free pass (or just reduced accountability) for violating CIV, AGF and other behavioural norms, so long as they "really, really convinced" it is for the good of the project in anti-FRINGE terms is absolutely useless as a standard or an operational rule of thumb.

  But even more to the core of the matter, even if you think FRINGE violations are, as a class, overwhelmingly more damaging to the work of the project than behavioural violations (which I think falls apart as a generalized presumption pretty quickly under close scrutiny), it would still be a manifestly bad idea to encourage that FRINGE POV pushing/SPAs be met with lowered standards for conduct from the regular editorial corps. Because flame warring doesn't actually solve those issues in any way. It just makes the entire periphery of the content area that much more susceptible to WP:disruption, obfuscation of the actual editorial solutions, and community time sinks sorting it all out.

  We don't have a special need in FRINGE areas to let hotheads off the leash to engage in flame wars to stop the self-promoters and credulous POV pushers. What we need in FRINGE areas are editors with the exact opposite proclivities. Contributors who remain unflappable, who follow our standard rules of conduct and dispute resolution with great deference to civility and form (even when it involves a huge dollop of extra patience for the WP:NOTHERE nonsense), and who thereby rob the flame wars (AND the POV pushing) of oxygen, rather than throwing gasoline on the situation.

  And believe me, having spent time in these areas, I know that a lot of our contributors doing anti-fringe work are just that, and some of the emotional reactions come from occasional burn-out from dealing with all the nonsense. But the area also attracts an outsized number of users who, while in some cases useful for their subject matter expertise and/or general editorial experience on the project, also have this mentality of self-appointed guardianship and a sense that they should be allowed to, at their discretion, abrogate our normal behavioural expectations--because showing short shrift to those rules is the "lesser evil" when compared to what the other guy (whom they perceive, correctly or not, to be a POV pusher) is supposedly doing.

  That is absolutely wrong, it is what gets editors like :boo: in trouble, and it is the very last sentiment we ought to be validating in front of them in a situation like this, where we are trying desperately to arrest their problematic behaviours while retaining their presence here for their productive capabilities. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not arguing that anti-FRINGE editors should get a jail free card or exception to any policy—what I'm arguing is the converse and perhaps that's where we disagree.

  I see Wikipedia's one and only goal to provide quality content for our readers, and I think all the policies and guidelines exist in service of this goal. People who are actively advocating for our content to be worse are directly making the encyclopedia worse, while policies based on civility, behavior, edit warring and so forth are intended to prevent indirect harms to our content. Some of these indirect harms could certainly be worse than direct harms caused by a proFRINGE editor, depending on the case. However, I would argue "being wrong is disruptive" and this is often underestimated. Obviously, enforcing this would be difficult and problematic as no one can be right 100% of the time and we cannot agree what "right" is in all cases.

  So I do see it as mistaken that editors who cause harm to the encyclopedia by being wrong (even in cases of source misrepresentation, pov-pushing, and the like) often seem to face less consequences for their actions than editors whose errors occur in the course of interpersonal conflict, but perhaps that's unavoidable as in the latter case there is an aggrieved party to complain.

  I don't think any of the above exonerates bloodfox but I also don't think there is likely to be a consensus to ban them at this time. (t · c) buidhe 05:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I agree probably they will not be, and indeed, that's the outcome I have hoped for: they shouldn't be banned under these circumstances. And look, I'm sure we agree on more than we disagree about here, but I will make this important observation. It's not just the indirect consequences that we have to worry about when overzealous editors decide they are not subject to the normal rules of conduct on this project, because their unfettered truth-speaking is too important to the work of stopping the 'pro-fringe' crowd. Because you are quite right that those impacts to editor retention and issues with community time-sinks, and general project atmosphere and moral (the things that I assume you mean by "indirect impacts" to our work of producing reliable content for the reader) are all issues which follow from contributors who feel the normal behavioural rules do not apply to them.

  But also, they are just directly terrible for the very issues they think they are the panacea for. The multiply and magnify the very variety of issue they believe they are the solution to. They give cover and excuses to editors who would otherwise be easy for our processes to mark. They allow discussions to be more easily diverted from the substantive issues. In worst case scenarios, they feed the conspiracy theory nutbags on social media and promote recruitment for meat farms. And editor who spends 90% of their time trying to combat fringe, but who has the wrong temperament for that work, has a fraction of the overall cost-benefit value to that task than someone who spends 10% of their time combating fringe, but does so by consistently following the rules. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will follow WP:COAL and not enter a Pong-like discussion here, but evidence-free, broad-stroke descriptions of non-fringe-pushing editors such as many of our most quarrelsome users are the opposite of helpful, are hurtful and offensive on a personal level, and seemingly demonstrate bad faith on your part. Additional bad faith is revealed by implying that non-fringe-pushing editors are problematic as a group: What we need in FRINGE areas are editors [...] who follow our standard rules of conduct; and the area also attracts an outsized number of users who [...] have this mentality of self-appointed guardianship and a sense that they should be allowed to, at their discretion, abrogate our normal behavioural expectations. Lastly, having edited in such topics for quite a while now, I can not think of a single, non-fringe-pushing editor who has ever, in your words, encourage[d] that FRINGE POV pushing/SPAs be met with lowered standards for conduct from the regular editorial corps. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you missed where I've repeatedly indicated that I am not talking about the average editor working to check fringe contributions. But if I left any room for ambiguity, let me correct it now: the average person working in this area is competent, polite, and self-controlled. And they provide a vital function to this project under what are sometimes among the most exhausting situations Wikipedia can throw at a volunteer.

  Frankly, JoJo, I was working the anti-fringe beat long before you joined the project, so I don't need to be told by you that I am somehow showing "bad faith" simply because I happen to point to a longstanding issue in that area, and acknowledge a very real personality type that is a liability to the work. And bluntly speaking, anybody who works at those tasks and hasn't noticed problematic editors of this sort has some serious blinders on, given they are frequent fixtures of ArbCom cases and both AE and ANI reports.

  Look, let me put it to you this way: on a disturbingly high number of occasions, I have ecnountered editors pushing pro-child sex abuse ideologies. I'm sure if nothing else, we can probably agree at least that this is about the worst and most unacceptable type of fringe that we can imagine someone trying to slip into our conent, right? And if you knew me personally, you'd understand that there's not a type of person on the face of this planet who is more custom-tailored to get my blood boiling. But I never resorted to bending the rules in my efforts to run these shit-heels and their nonsense off the project. I kept cool and followed process. Because the task at hand was more important than my ego, or the satisfaction I would get from loosing my anger on them.

  Now if I can exercise self-control in those circumstances, then other anti-fringe advocates can sure as hell keep their crap together while talking to Avatar adherents, or cupping advocates, or flat-earthers, or the people here to blow the lid on the lizard people, the little grey men, the Illuminati, Area 51, earthquake machines, and the microchips Bill Gates put in our vaccines. One can and should deal with any kind of purveyor of snake-oil, psuedoscience, conspiracy theory, historical revisionism, and woo without losing their shit, giving the nutters more grist for the mill, and making the containment work harder for the rest of us.

  And I refuse to take it seriously when you claim that I am showing "bad faith" because I recognize that a certain subset of our fellow contributors in this area are more a liability than a help to the work. I'm sorry, but if you think that isn't so, you are just. plain. wrong. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support . Per User:FOARP, Bloodofox recently touched a content "third rail", which IMO has amplified and somewhat distorted perceptions of their long term behavior. It is true that Bloodofox has periodically (once a year? twice a year?) reached his limit of patience and reacted poorly with acerbic and condescending comments. This has led some to see CBAN as the only solution, but I don't agree the uncivil conduct is extreme and unrelenting enough to warrant expulsion from the project. I do support a formal warning per User: Levivich with ascending blocks if clear policy violations are repeated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Maybe LuckyLouie is right, and this warning will embolden admins to apply the necessary escalating blocks on future. Toadspike [Talk] 13:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Basically because this is our chance to tell BOO that this behaviour isn't cool regardless of where it is done. Please AGF in future or you'll be back here and it won't be pretty. And ghosting us like this is not impressive either. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The back and forth on the Braucherei talk page was the first time I remember ever having a conversation with :bloodofox:. For that stuff and all the other stuff I've read about here, it is my sincere hope that it will be enough. I'm not going to get my hopes up too high, though, because something seems to happen to us long-term types. In recent times I've seen several really good long-term editors get indeffed, and some were my friends and mentors. Eerie stuff, IMHO. Maybe :bloodofox: deserves harsher treatment, and maybe they'll get harsher outcomes if they try hard enough. It is my sincere hope that the subject of all this will come around and start treating other volunteer editors with Pillar Four courtesy from this moment on. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• support: something is better than nothing. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 17:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a note to say this overall thread has been open for two weeks now, with exactly one new participant in the last five days. Personal take aside, if it were about me I wouldn't want an open thread like this hanging over me for longer than it had to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Listed at WP:CR Kowal2701 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as I am opposed to warnings for experienced editors. A long-ass ANI thread threatening multiple blocks of various lengths is “warning” enough. Dronebogus (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the bare minimum given the problems going back years. Incivility is a serious problem and arguing (as some above seem to be doing) that an editor is so valuable that it outweighs that is inappropriate; the problem with incivility is that it drives off other editors, many of whom could have been just as valuable. Worse, if we don't crack down on incivility, the nature of Wikipedia can end up rewarding and encouraging it, because editors in a dispute have every incentive to be abrasive in order to drive off people who they disagree with. Wikipedia is ultimately a collaborative project and editors who cannot collaborate in a civil manner do not belong here. I also don't think "the thread is warning enough" passes muster when the editor isn't showing any serious intent to change that I can see. --Aquillion (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. Haven't we seen many times the failure to impose any sanction at all as essentially endorsement of the complained of behaviour? At the very least that should be avoided. FOARP (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I think Bloodofox is now aware that merely being right is not enough. But I can see supporters want a mark in the sand. Real marks in the sand get washed away by tides, perhaps that's a good thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Oppose for the simple reason that this means nothing. It is an empty, symbolic gesture that carries no responsibilities on part of the 'warned' editor. If they egregiously break policy, they will be sanctioned. That goes for all of us. wound theology◈ 06:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Vofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hazaras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hazaragi dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mongolic peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)