Mikewem

October 2024

Hello, I'm PakEditor. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Liturgy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. PakEditor (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The language in the article I removed goes directly against WP:NPOV

I view your edit as disruptive. Mikewem (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mikewem: The article already contains Liturgy is the customary public ritual of worship performed by a religious group. I could not understand why you wanted to remove that content. Can you explain your changes with providing WP:RS or directly text from the sources for your changes. & then add them with citations at the article. Thanks. PakEditor (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not remove "by a religious group", I removed "by this specific religious group". "By a religious group" is still there because that statement is NPOV. "By this and specifically this religious group" was removed because that statement is not NPOV

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liturgy No mention of any specific religion in the definition here Mikewem (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Zionism. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I did and do assume good faith. You are now making baseless accusations on my talk page. Mikewem (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't asking: this edit summary speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mikewem this is why your recent posts have been removed from Talk:Israel. Remsense ‥ 论 20:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, could you give a little more explanation of why you deleted my correctly formatted edit request?

Before I take this to AN, ScottishFinnishRadish tagging you here because you’ve been very helpful with this exact issue previously Mikewem (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I was a bit overzealous, since I was under the impression it was unfair to editors who cannot participate in the consensus building process to tell them "you needed consensus for this change". If that makes sense. Apologies! Remsense ‥ 论 20:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, please self revert, thanks Mikewem (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Did so. Remsense ‥ 论 20:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Another crisis averted. Thanks, everyone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There is an emerging crisis involving a certain user boldly bypassing an rfc and then going on to misstate the content of the rfc in their edit summaries. If you happen to be in the mood for a crisis lol. Mikewem (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That's something you'd have to be extended-confirmed to discuss if it involves ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Mikewem! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please keep edit requests simple, change X to Y, sourced as necessary. No lengthy explanations, justifications, etc and avoid section headings such as "Controversial, unsourced statement in lead; invites accusations of antisemitic bias", "Edit Request" is sufficient. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I was as concise as I could've possibly been. Please do not delete edit requests in the future. I changed the title for the sake of civility, though I maintain the title was civil and conformed to WP guidelines. Mikewem (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, if you persist with reverting (so far, 3 different editors), I will ask that you be blocked from editing. Use the template if you are having problems. Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, can you clarify here, please. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Talk:Zionism) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Have the other editors who engaged in edit warring also been blocked? Mikewem (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) For what it's worth, I don't agree that your comment should have been wholesale removed. It needed to be a lot clearer and more concise for it to stand a chance of being actioned, but it was not disruptive in itself. Nonetheless, repeatedly restoring it against multiple other editors was disruptive and this block was necessary to stop that. Please take the 24 hours to draft an actionable edit request. Maybe familiarise yourself with a less controversial area of Wikipedia first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to engage with whatever area of Wikipedia I would like. Thank you for confirming your view that the deletions were vandalism. The other editors appeared to be working together, which is a violation of WP policy.

Please focus your blocks on vandals in the future. Mikewem (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, if the comment should not have been wholesale removed, then it would not fall under the ECR exemption for edit warring, so I'm interested in if you think this was edit request enough to be acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish In my opinion, the request stood no chance of being accepted but removing it, although in good faith, was unnecessary and needlessly escalated the situation. Words of advice on how to formulate an actionable request was all that was required. But once multiple people got involved we end up in a situation where everyone reverts because someone else reverted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, the question isn't whether the request would have been acted upon, but whether it was in the correct format. Was it in the correct format? Mikewem (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been acted upon and it wasn't in the correct format. You would have known that if you spent more time reading WP:ARBECR, WP:EDITXY and WP:ERSAMPLE (all three mentioned in the edit summaries) and less time edit warring and casting aspersions (accusing good faith editors of vandalism). M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

An admin has already confirmed by edit request conformed to all those guidelines, thank you for restating them. Mikewem (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Rosguill blocked me even though the vandalism page he cited defines talk page vandalism vandalism as:

Illegitimately removing or editing other users' comments, especially in closed discussions, or adding offensive comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.

WP:TPV

People illegitimately removed my TP comment, according to this that makes them vandals. And I got perm blocked for saying I was reverting vandalism? Mikewem (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mikewem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

the edits I reverted were vandalism Mikewem (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You do not appear to understand what vandalism is, nor WP:PIA, as demonstrated by both this request and successive comments on this page. Upgrading to indefinite block pending demonstration of an understanding of the relevant rules as disruption seems clear to continue per responses like Special:Diff/1254162828 _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mikewem (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies

Please accept my apologies for reverting your comment on the WP:AN page. I initially thought it was someone evading their block at first, but realized on this page you were only partially blocked. So once again, sorry about that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm new to dealing with the notice boards (I haven't heard good things, wish me luck lol). I admit that my comment may not be perfectly in the absolutely correct format and I appreciate that you are on the lookout for users misusing the boards.

Thank you for your contributions. Mikewem (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and clear intent to ignore WP:PIA following the edit warring block, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mikewem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I’ve been indefinitely blocked (more than 24 hours now) for a first violation of 3RR. I made a good faith edit request on a contentious topic talk page in the correct format. Selfstudier began an edit war over it. I reverted their first deletion of my edit request. They claimed they didn’t like the subject line and gave a suggested subject title. I changed it to that suggestion and then they deleted it additional times. I reverted those additional times. I fully acknowledge that once Selfstudier started deleting me even after I compromised with them, I should have gone to AN instead of edit warring. If something like this happens again, I will go to AN after the first revert. Mikewem (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per discussion below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No justification given to indefinitely block. I did not engage in battleground and I did not disrupt PIA. I intend to refer this action to arbitration. Mikewem (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I've spoken with Rosguill, and they're willing to allow an unblock without the normal AE rigamarole. That discussion is here. In order to go that route you must familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, especially those that relate to contentious topics and demonstrate that you understand how your editing was disruptive. That includes understanding why calling good faith WP:ECR enforcement vandalism and edit warring is disruptive. There was a lot of subpar behavior in this situation, but it was greatly exacerbated by your edit warring and aggression. Simply holding off on the edit warring and seeking clarification would have avoided all of this. I suggest you think on this for a while, take some time to regain a level head about the situation, and then decide how you want to proceed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, there’s a lot to unpack here. I acknowledge and understand that doing so could come across as litigious, especially from an editor with few edits. I understand that an overly litigious WP is not in anyone’s interest and should be avoided wherever possible. Ultimately, yes, I am more interested in improving WP than standing on principle.

The edit request compromise for CT is what it is. I don’t know that anyone is calling it a perfect system, and I’m sure it must introduce some amount of extra work for over-worked admins.

I have read through and understand the cited guidelines. If you’re willing, could you give any feedback on whether my current understanding of the incident is off?:

I submitted a good faith edit request. It was immediately deleted. I was allowed to revert that one deletion because if someone deletes your good faith talk page comment, you are allowed to revert them. (Do I have that right?) Then someone else deleted it because they said they didn’t like the title. So I reverted them and changed the title. When they deleted me again after I compromised, I stopped assuming good faith from that one editor at that point. Regardless, was that the point to go to admin? Is the expectation to behave as if you assume good faith even when bad faith is being displayed (from one’s own perspective)? I understand that repeated reversions don’t help WP and get people feeling defensive.

Do you have any insight on this: when the editor deleted me because they said they didn’t like the title, if instead of reverting them, I simply made a new post with exactly the same body but a subject of “edit request”, would that choice have been viewed as more or less aggressive than reverting and changing the title?

I understand that edit requests are expected to be short. For clarity, are they allowed to include brief justification and evidence from sources? Are they more or less likely to be deleted if there is no justification or explanation whatsoever? Mikewem (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ECR edit request only system is the best of bad options for how to deal with the disruption and sockpuppetry in the topic area. Like you say, it is what it is, and if there were a better option that someone had thought of we'd likely be dealing with the fallout of that.

I think the biggest issue is that once you're in the "ECR loop" it becomes less likely that immediate adjustments will lead to anyone actually treating your request as valid. It's not great, but again, it is what it is. Editors in the topic area that work to enforce ECR revert literally thousands of ECR violations. It's a similar problem to new changes patrollers reverting and warning IPs for good faith, if not suitable, edits. When you're reviewing 95% dross it gets easy to see everything as dross. That's not a good reason, but again, it is what it is, and it's common in pretty much all patrolling/enforcement.

Secondly, edit requests have to be clear and actionable. At 402 words and three actual requests it's hitting the threshold of not clear and actionable. Keeping things short and separate is much more effective. Also, leave out personal commentary and focus on sources. For example:

“The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv, with little Zionist resources being deployed in support of European Jews.”

~The source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed. The elephant on the room here is the phrase “Zionist resources.” A reasonable observer could interpret that phrase to mean “Jewish money.” That gets into un-encyclopedic territory that is unfit for Wikipedia. Because the source makes no mention whatsoever of “resources”, I think this sentence should be changed to:

”The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv.”

works much better as

In paragraph X, section Y the source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed. Because the source makes no mention whatsoever of “resources”, I think this sentence should be changed to:

−

The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv, with little Zionist resources being deployed in support of European Jews.

+

The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv.

That cuts the text of the explanation in half, leaves out personal commentary that verges a bit into WP:NOTAFORUM, and plainly displays the change. Doing that for each individual request, preferably with some time between to address the earlier request, makes your requests clearly constructive and easy to see and implement.

As far as reverting, technically, yes, you can. However, editors that are enforcing WP:ECR are not constrained by the bright-line edit warring rules, and although this case is a murky since as it was noted above the request stood no chance of being accepted and edit requests are required to be constructive to meet the ECR threshold, the reverts of your request were not unreasonable. Also, yes, you should be assuming good faith even when you're seeing behavior you think isn't acceptable. Assume, for instance, that the editors reverting you have reverted hundreds or thousands of violations of ECR, and know from experience what edit requests are constructive enough to have a chance, and are worth editor time in reviewing.

Yes, should should have gone to an admin, or AN, or some other venue to seek clarification on why you were being reverted and if it was acceptable rather than reverting over and over. As far as changing the title or creating a new section, changing the title was fine, but as I explained above there were further issues with the request as written. I think the last point is the justification and evidence. That should be included, yes. But you want to keep it as concise as possible, and with as little A reasonable observer could interpret that phrase to mean “Jewish money.” That gets into un-encyclopedic territory that is unfit for Wikipedia. as possible. A much better justification is the source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to present an edit request with 2 options?:

“I suggest change X to Y

OR

Add source needed tag to X”

or would that be seen as overly presumptive?

Would the flow go something more like: I present request for X to Y, then it gets denied, then I present request to add source needed to X in a separate request? Mikewem (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, btw Mikewem (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You could include two options, as long as it remains clear and concise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I feel good if you feel good. Unless there’s something else to go over? Mikewem (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully ScottishFinnishRadish is fine with me offering a minor interjection here. To offer a perspective of a fairly uninvolved editor, if you'd used the standard edit request template, and I'd seen your request (which was unlikely since I hardly ever edit in the topic area and don't go looking for requests), I probably would have marked your request as answered and said something like 'not done, way too much for an edit request and it doesn't seem like all of your requests are even the sort of clear cut issues edit requests are meant for'.

It would have been better to start simple with perhaps the clearest problem. If that was successful, I don't think any editor would have minded you asking for something else if it was another reasonable request. If it was denied, then I guess it wasn't as clear cut was you thought and you'd have to consider whether any of your other suggestions were likely to be the same.

I feel what I said is similar to what SFR has said, but I bring up to because of another key point. While I'm not sure I would have personally deleted even the edit request you left, I think you're thinking the deletion is way more of a deal than it is. While leaving an edit request on the talk page would mean any other editor allowed into the A-I topic area can see it and decide actually some of it can be dealt with, or alternatively start a discussion on some of the issues you brought up; I'm pretty sure that in reality once edit requests are denied, it's rare much comes of them. I think some of them are even archived quickly e.g. within a few days which is perfectly allowed. In other words, while editors probably shouldn't be deleting reasonable edit requests instead just answering them either by effecting them or rejecting them, I expected rarely much difference between deleting one and answering but rejecting it.

Edit requests on ECR pages are sort of a unique situation since while normally the editor making an edit request could challenge the rejection or otherwise try to start a wider discussion over their proposed changes to get consensus, this isn't something that a non EC editor can do on ECR pages.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Your first message on your user page is that in your opinion there may be a major widespread admin corp issue on WP. Mikewem (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

We need a clear, unequivocal statement that demonstrates familiarity with our policies and guidelines and an understanding of how your editing was disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It would also help to have some examples of non-Arab/Israel conflict material you plan on editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I gave the unequivocal statement already. Now you’re adding on extra requirements and hoops to jump through.

Editors shouldn’t be deleting edit requests. If none of them were sanctioned but I was, then we’ll have to go to arbitration. Mikewem (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I did notice that the other editor involved said they will no longer enforce ECR on their talk page. I support that decision from that one editor. Mikewem (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify, I do not want to go to arbitration and I think it is still avoidable. Do you consider the Liturgy page to be within the Arab/Israel conflict? Specifically my edits there, would you define those as non-A/I material? Mikewem (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish @Rosguill checking in on the status of my block.

I am familiar with the policies and guidelines and I understand that repeated reverts are disruptive. If someone deletes an edit request from me again, I will go to AN to seek clarification. Thanks for your commitment to WP. Mikewem (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Seeing replies like I gave the unequivocal statement already. Now you’re adding on extra requirements and hoops to jump through. Editors shouldn’t be deleting edit requests. If none of them were sanctioned but I was, then we’ll have to go to arbitration. doesn't inspire a ton of confidence. WP:GAB covers exactly the questions that were asked so I don't think it's out of left field that I asked them. There's also some WP:NOTTHEM mixed in.

Your edits at liturgy did not violate WP:ECR, although edit summaries calling other edits disruptive aren't great. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The specific presentation of the point about what I can add to WP (from GAB) caught me off guard, but under the circumstances I can see why you asked it the way you did, and I can see how my response did not inspire confidence. It seems to be that there are some users who exclusively edit in A/I or other contentious topics. I agree that exclusively editing in CT can in and of itself be a battleground behavior, and will inevitably lead to a battleground mentality. I do not intend to exclusively engage with CT.

I use WP mostly for pop culture and science. I have a decent eye for grammar, readability, and sourcing. I use the Oxford comma but it’s not a hill I would switch around an entire article for. If an article primarily doesn’t use the serial comma, I would happily remove one or two occurrences of an Oxford in order to conform to the majority of the article. I use American spelling, but I’m acquainted with British spelling and I would be comfortable adjusting a given word either way in order to have it better conform to the whole article. If material is unsourced, I would be more interested in finding a source that supports it and then adding that as a citation than I would be inclined to just outright remove it. If it’s easily demonstrable that the source and the wider literature on the topic does not support the unsourced material, then I would be comfortable with the decision to remove it. If a nuanced and cited rewrite of the unsourced material better serves the totality of the article, then I would offer a nuanced and cited rewrite.

Yes, I do intend to present my qualm with the sourcing of the line about resources in the Zionism article again, but I can see how waiting until I get EC before I present it again would be beneficial to my goal of having the lead be sourced. I don’t expect to like every single word in Zionism, but I do expect the lead to be sourced, and I think I can help with that in some limited ways. I do believe that the specific point about the sourcing of the resources line is within the bounds of what an ECR edit request is intended to cover, but I can see how the point would be better received if it came from an EC user. Mikewem (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Rosguill, what do you think? I know you said this can be treated as a normal unblock, but I'd like to hear if you think this, with the above understanding of edit warring and ECR, is sufficient? I'm willing to unblock at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes that seems reasonable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Mikewem! The thread you created at the Teahouse, When to cleave vs when to carve, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

American politics

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Mikewem! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Reopen an answered edit request?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Mikewem. Thank you.

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from WP:PIA5 until you are wp:extended confirmed. Gaming this will be considered a violation of the topic ban.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Valereee (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Mikewem! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Definition of "all editors" for RM discussions, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

What's happening at The Holocaust page?

I have not visited the page as I have got no time, is there anything possible conclusion that came there? I see that there is lot of distraction from main topic. Wh67890 (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

That page is extended confirmed protected. See the alert on your talk page for an explanation. I’m actually going to go through and strike all comments from editors who are not extended confirmed in order to adhere to our policies, and to make the job easier for the admin who will close the request. “Close” means that someone will read the whole thread and the invoked policies, and judge the outcome based on the strength of each argument.

That being said, experienced editors have made very strong arguments in opposition. Wikipedia has protected that page from those who would wish it harm for 20 years, and there’s no reason to think that will stop now. If, for any reason, the request passed, it will immediately be appealed on the grounds of WP:EXPLICIT, which states that move requests that affect multiply page titles must list all the page titles in the original move request, which did not happen here. Mikewem (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Mike, when you strike comments, its usually helpful to add some sort of in text explainer, either a comment linking to the appropriate policy, or a italic smalltext comment after each strike (probably overkill here, but better for smaller deletions). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I did immediately realize that I neglected to link arbecr in my edit summary and was wondering how that would go. I think it would be reasonable for me to self revert, then self revert again to restore the strikes, but add WP:ARBECR to the summary. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mikewem (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Or, do you mean just a reply to the thread saying “I struck comments from non-ec users per ARBECR”. I like that idea, I’ll do that right now Mikewem (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I should add, strike means strike through. The comments will still appear, but they will have a line through them. Your arguments were invoked multiple times by ec editors who agreed with your reasoning to oppose the move. If the closing admin would like to read your arguments that ec editors agreed (or disagreed) with, they will be able to. Mikewem (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Wh67890 (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Just for my own understanding, what policy allows you to strike non-EC comments from the talk page? I couldn't find where our policies say that non-EC editors shouldn't participate in talk page discussions on contentious topics. Thanks! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR A.1.

“Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below.”

Only means only. And comments on RMs are not “edit requests”

Now it is true that RMs can be considered to technically be a type of edit request, but per WP:EDITXY point 2. the request must be uncontroversial and not require discussion. There has certainly been discussion at Holocaust. Mikewem (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I am asking @Mikewem you to stop making mess in my talk page without any considerable reason. Wh67890 (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Any editor is allowed to comment on any thread in any user talk page. Talk page owners have full autonomy over what happens on their own talk page WP:OWNTALK. Anne Drew was polite, asked a relevant question, and I was happy to answer it. Talk pages belong to the user whose talk page it is. This one is mine. Mikewem (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense! Thanks for clarifying. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 13:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Reaching out

Hi there, I wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your efforts on 2025 Boulder fire attack. We have been handling some emotionally challenging material these past few days and I hope you are keeping well. HussainHx (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey

There wasn't an edit conflict between me and him. There's just multiple editors attempting to change the article at the same time. If there was an accidental reversion I profusely am sorry. GayCommunist1917 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit war means that you have re-inserted material that someone else removed. You appear to be engaged in edit warring over the anti-abortion content. If you continue with this, you may lose editing privileges. If you think it should be in the article, start a Talk topic on it. Mikewem (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi there! Do you mind temporarily de-archiving the talk page thread about early life over at 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators? I would like to suggest to the editor that they make an account and also explain that this article is not a biography of Boelter. If not, that's fine. Have a great day! EllieDellie (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I think writing that on the editor's own talk page is a great idea!

I do struggle with weighing whether to enforce protection on ctop talk pages vs using it as a learning opportunity to inform and educate IP users. Mikewem (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I can try creating a talk page for the editor, but in my experience it appears that IP editors tend not to be notified of such things. Worth a shot, at least. EllieDellie (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

While on the topic of archiving threads on that particular talk page, this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators&diff=prev&oldid=1295911094

was completely unjustified. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding warning on user talk pages.

I was going over your recent edits because of what happened at Talk:2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators regarding the archiving issue/WP:EDITXY claim. There was only one editor that you warned for this from what I saw, so I tried to explain to them where the confusion appears to have occurred.

However, I came across this edit of yours. From my reading of it, you told another user that if you had to gathered diffs of their edits to prove that they were edit warring, that it would be used to get them temporarily banned. Can you clarify and explain why you said this to another user? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I said it because the user was continually re-inserting material covered by 3 contentions topics without consensus or source, and then the user denied that they were edit warring.

The denial seemed to be a momentary conflation of a "conflicting edit" with an "edit war". Both edit conflict and edit war had recently occurred.

If they refused to acknowledge that they were edit-warring, I was going to go through and collect diffs. Having done that work already, and bearing in mind that we’re dealing with a sensitive claim in a breaking news story covered by multiple ctops, yes, I probably would’ve been inclined to take those diffs to ANI if the user continued to refuse to acknowledge that they were re-inserting contested claims. I can’t know how that ANI report would end, but I was echoing language in the standard edit war warning notice that says you will likely be blocked from editing. Mikewem (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Zionism

Hiya. I saw this. If you look at the diff using "visual mode" instead of wikitext mode, you'll see that it added the wikilink to Sylvie d'Avigdor in footnote 3. I've undone your edit. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I’ll remember to check the visual version if I come across something like this again.

I guess the final tally was 4 characters added for the link, and then 9 erroneous spaces in refs were removed for a grand total of -5. Mikewem (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

1R violation

The notice at the top of the article clearly says that "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". So I suggest you self-revert and seek consensus for your changes, otherwise, I will take this to AE. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

This would be a violation of consensus required, not 1RR. In my view, the policies about copyright, over-capitalization, and unexplained source removal provide the required consensus. Mikewem (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

You can take that to mean whatever you want so long as you understand that you need to self-revert or be reported to AE. M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Mikewem. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Mikewem, please respond in the thread. Lack of communication would make it more likely for this to result in a topic ban. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks pretty clear to me that the decision has pretty much already been made and that I shouldn’t expect to be granted any presumption of good faith. I will respond, but I hope you can understand that I didn’t exactly feel a pressing need to rush. I got busy at work and I’m still kind of waiting for an explanation of the diffs which I requested an explanation for. They weren’t deleted or struck or collapsed, so ignoring them seems impossible, and I honestly have no idea how to respond to a PIA complaint about a Holocaust edit. Mikewem (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have now struck those two diffs to make clear that they are withdrawn. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 21:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate you helping with this clarification, thank you Mikewem (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Until the thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Mikewem is resolved, you are topic banned from making any edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed on any articles or article talk pages.

You have been sanctioned based on the issues raised in the thread, prior history of sanctions, and lack of responsiveness to the thread.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. You can appeal this directly in that thread. You may also appeal directly to me (through a reply here), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me through a reply here if anything above is unclear to you. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite topic ban from Israel-Palestine (WP:PIA), broadly construed. This can be appealed to ARCA.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeated violation of topic ban (diff) after warning and history of violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Civil Dispute resolution

Greetings, I just wanted to consult you for settlign our little dispute between us. I might have upset you by something and I can see from your Talkpage that topics related to Israel or Moses seem to be emotionally close. I would like to offer you a chance to discuss things through here and now. I will take my time for you. If we cannot settle it between us, an admin will eventually chime in and then it might not be looking good for you.

And if I am honest, the reason I consult you and not report you directly is mostly because it is time-consuming, not because there is nothing to report or even because I am nice. Its mostly for being constructive and efficient.

So, what exactly is the issue you have, because I brought my position to the talkpage, yet you did not answer anywhere? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You have demonstrated a pattern of not respecting BRD and your edits tend to include OR Mikewem (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

BRD?

If my edits include OR why do you not demosntrate it on the talkpage and the dispute would have been settled? Instead you accuse me of Denial in the edit summary. This is rather confusing as your claims alck coherence. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I did demonstrate it in the talk page. Other editors agreed, we established consensus, then you disappeared and reinstated your preferred version without substantively engaging in the established discussion. Mikewem (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

When why did you not reply to my objectins? Yo are aware that people can object to your replies if they are weak right? People are not BOTs or Ai that they just shut up as soon as you prompt something.

I also announced that I will not be able to reply for a while. If you would actually read what people reply, you would have known that. And the fact that nothing was said against my point within multiple weeks is enough reason to justify my position. You cannot just ignore your problems and then expect them to go away? If there is a violation in the sources, the sources must be removed. The only way to keep the source was to proof that it is not a violation. But you did not, noone did, for weeks. Of course it is gonna be removed. What did you expect? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

btw I will also disappear again soon. I wanted to make a few edits and do my patrolling. I have now spend a considerable time of my evening, and will do a bit more, to settle this dispute. If we part again, you will need to wait again.

If you revert ym edits again, I will go online and just restore my versions. Also be warned: You now know why you are in the wrong, next time I might prioritize reporting you over edits or patrolling. you better either have a valid (!) reason (not some random accusations), or better keep it as it is now. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I made my edit I planned and its getting late. So there was no notification on your part and there is still no reply here. As such, I consider our dispute settled now and we agree upon what has been discussed here.

have a nice day VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Here the quote for eveyone to read:

"In the Quran, Iblis is present in the court of Allah and protests not to prostrate to Adam because of his superior fiery origins.9 It is in this vein, that the folkloristic Mephisto is to be situated, He is similarly present in the court of God and has shared a certain history with Him and challenges him to corrupt his earthly “servant”". The page number was also given so I really have hard times to give you the benefit of the doubt right now. If you have struggles with researching sources, I offered to help you. But then lets do it on the talkpage, but here and now, everyone on the Watchlist can read what we discuss, and hnestly, it is getting kinda embarassing for you. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Moses. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Nil🥝 01:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

---

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Law of Moses. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Orxenhorf (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Civility

Honetly I was a click away from writing a report. However, your recent discussions on the talkpage have shown to me that a civil and mutual discussion is possible. For this reason, I decided to refrain from further involvements of any comitee. I also want to express my gratitude, because this way, my own day also gets much easier. I really appreciate that. Let's talk things out, but please, read what is written carefully.

I do not want to harm any religion, ethncity, worldview, or whatsoever. I actually have been involved in disputes, also here on Wikipedia, in order to present the most netural stance on every matter as much as possible. I know religion is a sensitive topic and language is prone to miscommuniation especially when confronted with fields of social sciences. So, please read the explanations carefully. As in the case of the "Law of Moses". I was not excluding Islam from the religious narrative, I actually wanted to emphazize the Islamic version about it. SImilarly, when I say Moses is not a historical figure, I am not saying he is not real. But history and legends are different categories and legends can also be real. But, unlike history, you need a grain of faith to beleive that.

Again, thanks for discussing things on the talkapge and I hope you have a nice day. I want to try to check in more frequently again from now on, but I have a pretty tight schedule and lot of deadlines for different research projects going on. Wikipedia is really just an unpaid side-hustle to me in that regard. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Mikewem! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How to handle seemingly irate editor?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research

Hello I'm a student from LUISS university in Rome and I'm working on a presentation based on wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and one part of the work is to put myself in the shoes of a wikipedia contributor and find out some feeling he receives when editing or writing pages. The questions I would like to receive answers on are the following:

1. What does the editor think and feel:
2. What does the editor say and do:
3. What does the editor hear and see (about its surroundings):
4. What are his pains (what type of frustration does the user feel when contributing):
5. What are his gains (what does make him feel good when contributing):

Active support is really needed so thanks in advance and have a great day Tartaluca (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

2025 Bondi Beach shooting

Please be mindful that the one revert rule applies to this article. "It's against consensus" isn't usually a reason to revert. Local Variable (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m fully confident that the content in my edits is not subject to 1RR. If you have additional questions, please ask on the Talk page or maybe WP:Teahouse Mikewem (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Local Variable: WP:3RR does of course apply, as it does everywhere. If I’ve inadvertently violated 3RR I will immediately self-revert Mikewem (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem Hello. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but this article is subject to a 1RR sanction, as is indicated in a) the edit notice on the editing screen, b) the top of the article talk page. While I appreciate you are seeking to restore a relatively stable version of the article text, it's just going to lead to an edit war. The text will stabilise over time and other editors will probably restore it too. Local Variable (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m sorry that I can’t get into it, but the entire article is not covered by 1RR. I suggest carefully re-reading the notices Mikewem (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. I'm prepared to assume you're right and the editing of the lead doesn't cover that conflict area. Apologies for the inconvenience. Local Variable (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I do take full ownership for using “against consensus” in my edit summary. I shouldn’tve done that and I’m sorry. News and edits come fast in breaking news. I should’ve taken the time to say “under discussion in X thread”, but I didn’t want to take the time to grab the thread name and add more text, because I don’t like using the edit conflict wizard. But that’s no excuse at all. Mikewem (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I was the one mistaken, 3RR applied not 1RR and I don't think you broke it so you were free to revert. Sorry again. Local Variable (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Concern

This account, after months of inactivity, shows up to repeatedly remove the RS-based antisemitic classification from 2025 Bondi Beach shooting. They simply edit-war to keep their preferred version against what appears to be the Talk page consensus. ~2025-40560-50 (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

They have in fact reverted 3 times today by my count. If they make one single additional revert to any part of the article within the same 24 hour period, they would likely be subject to a violation of WP:3RR, and if an editor wished, they could report the violation at WP:ANI Mikewem (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Vote

Hey there! Thanks for that vote. Next time, when you see these problematic redirects, if you really want to invoke WP:IAR, do not hesitate to speedily delete it, or simply vote speedy delete, especially when it's blatant like in my case. :D HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 05:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

discourse/conduct at the AI slop paragraph sourcing discussion

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I found your recent comment to be a bit rude and off-putting, I'm not sure if that's how you intended to come across.

I'm genuinely working to find sources, and the SAN source uses the words "Kirkify", "Kirkifying", and "Kirkified" (and no, it doesn't mention "Kirkification", but I also never claimed that it did!).

Perhaps you are feeling frustrated, but as I mentioned, the German source does contain the word you are looking for:

Süddeutsche Zeitung: „Lasst die Memes eurer Kinder in Ruhe!“ Quote from the article: Aktuell ist unter Jugendlichen ein Charlie-Kirk-Face-Swap-Meme sehr populär, bei dem das Gesicht des ermordeten Maga-Aktivisten auf andere Personen montiert wird. Es gibt dafür sogar ein eigenes Wort: Kirkification.

Rough translation is: "A Charlie Kirk face swap meme is currently very popular among young people, in which the face of the murdered Maga activist is mounted on other people. There is even a separate word for it: Kirkification." Archive link is here

That German paper is also well known, popular, and a reliable source. Happy holidays. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK. The info you want to be on Wikipedia is on Wikipedia at Assassination of Charlie Kirk#Use of artificial intelligence on social media Mikewem (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy to drop the stick, but your use of harsh/misleading language towards another editor (me!) is not cool.

No expectations of an apology, although I'd recommend doing some personal reflection. There is always room for personal growth; the hallmark quality of any decent editor here. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

new year's eve

I dunno about you but calling me incompetent to even edit anything more on this wiki over Charlie Kirk is crazy ngl 💔 ///// JUMPINGISNOTACRIME (he/him) 16:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Mikewem!

Happy New Year!

Mikewem,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

edit war

read wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

BLP is exempt Mikewem (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

No its not, it's that removing SOME content is exempt (I do not agree the content you are removing meets that criteria). It is not a blanket exemption. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

It’s unsourced for that section. Would you be ok with moving it to the Assassination section? Mikewem (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Dealt with on the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem: You clearly don't have talk page consensus for the changes you are attempting to force through here. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Charlie Kirk. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ///// JUMPINGISNOTACRIME (he/him) 06:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ///// JUMPINGISNOTACRIME (he/him) 06:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Charlie Kirk) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Hi, I noticed your edit to the article Killing of Renee Good with the 'bold delete' justification. I will not be reverting your edit, but I'd encourage you to take to the Talk Page to discuss inclusion/exclusion of material when it comes to contentious topics (in non-urgent cases) because 'bold' edits on these articles can often trigger edit warring. Discussions opened on Talk Pages for articles that are contentious topics will usually result in the speedy development of a consensus position from the input of multiple editors. The guidelines for 'be bold' (WP:CAREFUL) include an important caveat that "On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making change". Boredintheevening (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Per our procedures, the order is B, then R, then D per WP:BRD. If you think the material is DUE and you want to revert it’s removal, I would see that reversion as completely in line with our procedures and then I would most likely start a Talk as the third step in BRD. Mikewem (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Please don't focus too strongly on that essay and discuss where possible independently of who, in an imaginary "BRD" cycle, would be most required to do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I tried to edit my comment to get my facts straight, but you beat me to it. Anyway, I got my facts wrong. I was not the Bold edit. The Bold edit was the very recent addition of the satirical articles. I Reverted for the reasons I gave in my edit summary. The next step is D. On the article’s Talk page. Not here. Mikewem (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I’m 100% convinced that this case is crystal clear. We’re talking about Onion and Babylon Bee articles. WP:ONUS is on the people who added the contentious, self-published material. Mikewem (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I hope you understand that the identification of what constitutes the first move in a 'BRD' cycle is contingent on framing. Your deletion of material can be the 'B' or the 'R', and positioning your edit as either 'B' or 'R' in this process does not particularly matter. As @ToBeFree indicated, don't over focus on this essay (it is an essay, not a guideline) and instead please try to discuss. I am not sure that it makes sense to describe the material you are referring to as either contentious or self-published in the way those terms are usually applied on Wiki. I appreciate that you are trying to improve the articles that you engage with, but your manner of approach could be tempered - as per previous posts and warnings on this Talk Page. All the best with your future engagements, I'll sign off here. Boredintheevening (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I was the R Mikewem (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It would have been better for you to discuss the addition of the Babylon Bee. In the future, please discuss contentious additions to contentious topics before acting on them. Mikewem (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm required to warn you regarding bad faith argumentation before submitting you for User review

Hi, I'm required to warn you regarding bad faith argumentation before submitting you for User review as such would prevent a fair and objective resolution in regards to the Killing of Alex Pretti article. Guile's Theme (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Guile's Theme, are you using an AI? What kind of "user review" are you talking about? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CONDUCTDISPUTE&redirect=no, and I'm flattered. Guile's Theme (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Guile's Theme, the term "user review" doesn't appear there; neither does "bad faith". Where did these words come from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics Guile's Theme (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikilinks can be placed using double square brackets containing the title of the target page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Yea but that was lower effort and you insist on calling me AI anyway... That said maybe dispute resolution has changed since I last engaged with it last October because there is something I'm not seeing that I recall. Guile's Theme (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not seeing evidence in your edit history that you’ve previously engaged in some degree of dispute before, as you said here. It looks like mine is the first ever time you’ve commented on another user’s talk page. Did this past dispute happen on a different account? Mikewem (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You should look more closely; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coptic_language#RFC_from_Policy_and_History_for_Coptic_Language_Prohibition?_discussion_on_the_Coptic_Languages_talk_page

Although I suppose trying to go on the offensive when you can't or won't defend your conduct is one strategy. Guile's Theme (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

By any chance does any of this go anyway to explaining you selectively choosing to remove key contextual info from the Background of an article and instead bury it at the end of the article leaving only the indirect reference of it on the grounds of 'no consensus for double mention'; where was the consensus on which of the double mention to remove? Guile's Theme (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh boy, looking at your user history I can already see why you're nervous. This seems to be an established pattern with you. Guile's Theme (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Harassing other users is a violation of Wikipedia:HUSH which is a policy that broadly prohibits harassment including but not limited to harassment on user talk pages, and threats against other users, both of which you have engaged in on this tread alone. As you are a newer editor, you may not be aware of this but once you add something to another user's talk page, you may not remove it even if you regret posting it. If you were to bring your content dispute with Mikewem to an arbitration, you would likely find that your conduct during this dispute would be held against you.

You are not allowed to make threats against other users, period. You can certainly take your dispute to arbitration but it's very obvious why you started up with this behavior and any arbitrator will quickly see this and likely rule against you. There's a good chance you could face a topic ban or even a short term ban from editing Wikipedia entirely. You made the original threats again Mikewem after you didn't get your way on a dispute regarding the Killing of Alex Pretti article. You've escalated and doubled down and it's not working out for you. My suggestion is that you quit while you're behind. Read up on WP:PG and learn the rules of the road here. Bill Heller (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn't harassment, this is the first step in submitting a User Conduct review, to leave a comment on the talk page. I'll also quote Mikewen himself in regards to my right to comment here, "Any editor is allowed to comment on any thread in any user talk page." - from this same talk page.

And I couldn't help but commenting on the history of this user once I looked into it; and honestly to give a fair summary with no astroturfing this is the result:

Account created in 2019 but almost totally inactive until Oct 2024, since then the articles they've been most drawn/active in include, in chronological order with penalties, Zionism, for which he was censured and indefinitely blocked, failed first appeal, succeeded on second appeal, US AID, Department of Government Efficiency, Israel, Pope Francis, subjected to arbitration enforcement sanction by the Israel-Palestine articles, Judaism, 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting, Victims of Nazi Germany, The Holocaust, 2025 Boulder Fire Attack, back to Zionism, again subjected to arbitration enforcement sanction by the Israel-Palestine articles, Assassination of Charlie Kirk, 2025 Bondi Shooting, Killing of Renee Good, and now Killing of Alex Pretti.

Make of this what you will. Guile's Theme (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

By "submitting a User Conduct review", are you talking about posting your concern at WP:ANI? If so, you don't have to warn someone prior to doing so, you only have to alert them once you've opened a discussion there (see the instructions at the top of that page). If you have someplace else in mind, it's unclear. A couple of words of unsolicited advice: try to resolve your concern without resort to using ANI (e.g., having a good-faith discussion of your concern here), and keep in mind that reports can WP:BOOMERANG. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Talking to someone before taking them to ANI is usually somewhere between required and recommended depending on how severe the issue is. It's in ANI's header too (If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page). But WP:RFC/U exists and is an actual far-outdated page using this terminology, which is why I suspect Guile's Theme is using a hallucinating AI, or is active in a different language Wikipedia that still uses such processes, or perhaps just uses bad translation software. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing that it comes from the language at WP:DR (e.g., in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution § Resolving user conduct disputes). And yes, the reason for part 1 of my advice was the expectation that editors first try to resolve their concerns before taking it to a noticeboard FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Guile's Theme has made something like 25 article space edits in his time on Wikipedia. I'm not some 100,000 edit guy but I make a point not to rock the boat, engage in consensus and understand that being reverted or having my ideas not be reflected in the consensus is part of the Wikipedia process. I'll echo WP:BOOMERANG. I specifically didn't mention ANI because I felt that this user might not know how to escalate this dispute, which, from what I can tell, is one of his own making.

Editing several contentious topics pages does not suggest that one has done something in and of itself improper. The important thing is that we follow WP:PG. Bill Heller (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I find it funny how none of you are actually engaging with what actually constitutes my dispute with Mikewen, which is,

"By any chance does any of this go anyway to explaining you selectively choosing to remove key contextual info from the Background of an article and instead bury it at the end of the article leaving only the indirect reference of it on the grounds of 'no consensus for double mention'; where was the consensus on which of the double mention to remove?"

Instead you resort to gaslighting and petty attempts at intimidation and brigading absent any solid logic or evidence for your claims mostly because I'm advocating for a change you don't agree with.

Did you also not read the part where I went over Mike's user history? I'm not too worried about any consequences for myself in this situation given a repeat offender serial contentious topic editor is still allowed to go about his business after multiple penalties. It feels more like you're trying to scare me off tbh.

Also telling people not to 'rock the boat' is what they say to whistleblowers and truthsayers most often in my perception. My only interest is in sound fair good faith debate to reach Wiki's policies on articles; having your biases is fine but if you aren't able to engage in good faith then a fair and neutral consensus is never possible.

Anyway I probably cannot continue to escalate at the moment because of the opened RFC, and I have to exhaust low tier options first per policy. For the record Mikewen's response thus far appears to be to ignore and not engage with the issue I've brought up with him while immediately reaching for counter accusations. I can also looking through his previous and future edits and see if this is the first time he has done this in this article and part of a pattern which would be important if this continues to escalate.

Guile's Theme (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You've said a lot here. Let's start with your claim here:

"By any chance does any of this go anyway to explaining you selectively choosing to remove key contextual info from the Background of an article and instead bury it at the end of the article leaving only the indirect reference of it on the grounds of 'no consensus for double mention'; where was the consensus on which of the double mention to remove?"

There have been two, now three RfCs looking at this. Two (IMO more informal) RfCs have concluded that it should not be included in the background section. The third RfC is open and has a few comments on it as of this writing. You've made it clear you're unhappy about that but trying to escalate this into threatening other users is not the way to go about this.

"Did you also not read the part where I went over Mike's user history?"

Users are allowed to edit contentious topics pages. There's nothing wrong with that. You're upset at Mikewem because he has a different opinion from you and you have threatened to try to escalate your content-related dispute with him to administrators if you don't get your way.

I did not tell you not to rock the boat. I said "I make a point not to rock the boat, engage in consensus and understand that being reverted or having my ideas not be reflected in the consensus is part of the Wikipedia process."

You wrote:

Instead you resort to gaslighting and petty attempts at intimidation and brigading absent any solid logic or evidence for your claims mostly because I'm advocating for a change you don't agree with.

I have done nothing of the sort. In fact, you have been the one making threats against other users, in this case specifically Mikewem. Instead, you ought to participate in the consensus building process. That's the WP way. Bill Heller (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll be honest Bill, I don't really see any reason to engage with you here on this talk page. You don't have an edit history I respect, because you don't have an edit history at all really in my opinion, and I believe your purpose here is only to hound me for following policy; which is to leave a comment on the users talk page before escalating. If you have an issue with my conduct you may do the same but otherwise entertaining you here is meritless and pointless beyond the fact I disagree with almost everything you said. Guile's Theme (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Guile's Theme First, no one is calling you AI - that stands for artificial intelligence.

Secondly, all of this jawjaw needs to stop. Either take MikeWem to some discussion board or I will probably block you for your conduct. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I already said I didn't see a point in further engaging. And I consider being called AI or using it pejorative and demeaning. If you'd like to specify how my conduct has been inappropriate it would be informative.

As a side note I'd like to wish you good health and good fortune in your battle. 🎗️ Guile's Theme (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for good wishes.

An example would be your response to @Billheller, who has twice as many edits than you do. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Please do not unilaterally strike comments

You are not an admin. And I see this has been an issue of habitual behaviour with you on this subject. Wikipedia is not a venue for activist editors. Please cease immediately. Regards ~2026-68502-0 (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal per WP:TALK#TOPIC. The talk page for the Holocaust is not a forum to present your thoughts about the Holocaust. Mikewem (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

This is obviously a bad faith rendering of my comment, begging the question: why? I urge you to be more careful unilaterally editing contentious topics like this. You are treading a fine line. Regards, ~2026-68502-0 (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for thoughtful heads up on User_talk:LateNightCoffee#Incoming_ANI_filing. I think that was very kind. SMasonGarrison 04:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Just block me. I don't know how to do Wikipedia. I'm new, but I just don't care. Block me please. ImVeryStupid (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

We’d rather have you learn the policies, guidelines, and norms and become a valuable contributor to the project. Mikewem (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

No, just block me. Just please do so. I already did apologize to you, but I don't care. ImVeryStupid (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Take a step away from the site. You appear to need it. Raskuly (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

ImVeryStupid just got permanently banned from Wikipedia after requesting to be banned, just fyi. ~2026-11772-98 (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I was aware, I sent that message before they got blocked. Also, they are not permanently banned from Wikipedia, they can request to be unblocked and I imagine they would likely be successful in doing so. Raskuly (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

While semantics

Just FYI, note the secondary definition

While

conjunction

preposition: while; conjunction: while

1. 1. during the time that; at the same time as. "nothing much changed while he was away"
2. 2. whereas (indicating a contrast). "one person wants out, while the other wants the relationship to continue"
   

Chattenoir (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I’ve always thought of definition 2 as indicating a simultaneous contrast, though I could be wrong. In your example, I would think the point of using the word ‘while’ is to highlight the dramatic tension of the one person wanting out at the same instant as the other wants the relationship to continue.

Either way, I wouldn’t think that one security guard being injured in a crash is different enough from 30 first responders being injured as a result of inhaling smoke from that same crash to rise to the level of connecting them with a ‘whereas’ contrast. Mikewem (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I see them as related, sequential events, not as events that are in contrast with each other in some way. Mikewem (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moses, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amenmose was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Ashkenazi Jews, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please assume editors are acting in good faith to improve Wikipedia. You reversion of my WP:GOOD FAITH edits are meant to improve Wikipedia and its articles. I gave adequate reason for them. If you have any problem with my edits, acquiant yourself with Wikipedia policy. I wil have to escalate the matter if you continue to do so, as it can be construed as WP: HOUNDING. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

At this point, I would encourage you to escalate. Mikewem (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Confidence! Is it following Wikipedia tenets or is it a personal request? I know I'm following the codes of conduct expected of me. Are you? JJNito197 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s possible I’m not. If you think I’m not, then the place to litigate conduct issues such as Hounding is ANI. Mikewem (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You do realise the text is copied verbatim in the article which is why I removed it. Read the article. JJNito197 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Based on your edit summaries, I concluded that you thought the text in question was too similar to the block quote. Your summary with the actual location of the dupe text was very helpful, thank you. I’ve consolidated the study into one section now, I hope that works for you. Mikewem (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Casting aspersions?

Taking this here so as not to further bloat the RfC with off-topic discussions. Regarding this comment in which you said:

It’s very common for textbooks to re-use material and for identical material to be printed in various volumes and collections.

I have no position on which textbook we should use. I found one that is available online.

I’m taking your continued use of the word “incorrect” as a refusal to cease casting WP:ASPERSIONS.

Could you please clarify what you mean?

Boutboul attributed the quotation "the development of Northern Europe resulted, inter alia, in the emergence of a new branch of the Jewish people, usually designated Ashkenazic Jewry" to Chazan's chapter "The Emergence of the Medieval Northern European Diaspora" in The Oxford Handbook of the Jewish Diaspora (2021). No such text appears in that chapter. The citation information was obviously incorrect.

You then found the quotation in an entirely different text: Chazan's "Medieval Western Christendom," chapter 9 of The Cambridge Companion to Antisemitism. I asked if we should correct the bibliographic information, which I hope you can see was incorrect, because you complained that I struck out sources that failed verification in that they did not so much as mention Ashkenazi Jews at all, accusing me of striking out a user's comments.

These are two distinct texts—one contains the quotation and the other doesn't; this is not an instance of textbooks reusing identical material. Without acknowledging doing so in the discussion, Boutboul then adjusted the quotation, inserting his own interpretation into the quotation field of the citation template, introducing a connection to Ashkenazi Jews where none is explicitly made in the cited WP:RS. إيان (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s not an invented quote, which you accused it of being. It’s not a “major error”, which you characterized it as. And it is not a symptom of lack of competence, which you invoked by linking CIR. It’s not spam, it’s not irrelevant, it’s not fabricated. I would characterize all of these objections you made as “accusations of misbehavior without evidence”.

I do not have access to the Oxford Handbook, but I will take your word for it that the text in question does not appear in Chazan’s chapter (this is the first time I’m seeing you or anyone say that the text does not appear in Oxford,. If it does not appear in Oxford, then yes, it is incorrect to say that it appears in Oxford and that should be corrected to say it appears in Cambridge). This would be evidence of an error, though not evidence of misbehavior.

I’m not terribly interested in who made what minor citing error when. All of the proposed quotes from Chazan are real quotes that appear in reliable sources (and appear to be quite useful for the question at hand). I guess I will add p 159 of Cambridge to the list. Mikewem (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

If a source proposed on Talk fails verification, you can ping the person who added it, present your case, and then ask if they agree. Or you can tag it with . But there is no policy which allows an editor to unilaterally alter someone else’s talk page comment because the editor unilaterally decided that it failed verification. Mikewem (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The basic point is simple: the quotation exists in Chazan. The error was that it was initially attached to the wrong Chazan work. That is a bibliographic mistake, and I am perfectly willing to acknowledge it. What it is not is a fabricated quotation or some kind of deceptive sourcing.

This is a talk-page discussion about how best to source and word a claim. There is no consensus here on the proper sourcing standard for this point, which is exactly why sources were being tested and compared in the first place.

At this point, I think the error has been sufficiently identified. I would rather return to the substantive sourcing issue than continue inflating a citation mistake made during discussion into something more than it was. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Template removal

You are being deliberately obstructive and removing templates that were put up to improve the article, if you continue to act the way you are doing, I will go to the relavant notice board. A completely unrelated account also civily had an objection at present. Neither issue has been resolved. This can be construed as WP:Disruption to Wikipedia JJNito197 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. JJNito197 (talk)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. JJNito197 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Change the Title Please.

"I want to clarify my previous comment. When I mentioned a 'happy end,' I was not referring to the tragic death of Renée Good. I was referring to the fact that, despite efforts to demonize her at the time, the public now knows the truth. My point was about her reputation being restored and her being remembered honorably, which is the 'positive' outcome regarding her legacy." ButteyFelicity (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk revert

Hi Mikewem, you reinstated my revert of my removal of the WP:OVERLAP material on Charlie Kirk's page. You said you had consensus to keep the material vs removing it entirely. Can you link me where that consensus took place? I actually would make a motion to remove it entirely since I will be raising issues about the WP:SIZE of the Kirk article. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

My preference is to remove it entirely. But I actually got a temp page block a few months ago that was related to my view of the shortened text as a BLP vio (consensus is that including it in that section is not a BLP vio and I respect the standing consensus). But suffice to say, I’m not enthusiastic to join a campaign to remove it. Mikewem (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The thread is Talk:Charlie Kirk/Archive 6#Last words Mikewem (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

2026 White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting Infobox Image

Hi, please see the Talk Page regarding the infobox image for the 2026 White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting. We'd welcome your input, but please participate in the discussion before changing the image as their currently appears to be a consensus. Alpacaaviator (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Alpaca, this is as good a time as any to learn about the perennial issue of WP:EDITCONFLICT. Basically, if I start my edit before you finish yours, then the software will overwrite yours without me being made aware immediately. The solution is to always check all of one’s own edits after making them, especially on active pages. Mikewem (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

comparing edit content with edit summaries can also be useful in determining what is and is not an edit conflict. Mikewem (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

May we resolve things?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ripple/2026/02/02/minneapolis-ice-watch-protests-defend-612/

https://labornotes.org/2026/01/renee-good-killed-ice-was-standing-solidarity-her-neighbors#:~:text=The%2037%2Dyear%2Dold%20Renee,you%20see%20an%20ICE%20agent.%E2%80%9D

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/us/renee-good-minneapolis-ice-monitoring-school-invs

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/11/politics/minneapolis-shooting-ice-watchers-protesters

These are good links and I researched them to be reliable. Im sorry If I caused harm. ButteyFelicity (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/8

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/CNN

these say it is generally reliable as well as Labornotes which is a respected source for activism. ButteyFelicity (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

As a new editor, a good rule of thumb is to never revert a revert. If someone deletes an addition you made, never undo the deletion. Instead, you should go straight to the talk page, tag the deleting editor with this code: {{u|editorname}} (replace “editorname” with the editor’s name), and explain your additions and ask why they were deleted and discuss to see if a middle ground is possible. Mikewem (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Though they would usually argue to the death with you. Help:Reverting Though it says assume in good faith when reverting. And I’ve tried that actually. I sometimes don’t since the computer I use crashes frequently and I have multiple tabs open which lags it. I have reverted some stuff in good faith with one detailing shootings in Minneapolis but listening goods and alex’s although it appeared to be mass shootings looking at the other links. Did that too for law enforcement since it doesn’t specify federal agents and that they aren’t considered law enforcement. Possibly that could be a section added? Killings by federal officers? ButteyFelicity (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello- question

Hi it’s me again. May we forget what has happened before and start over?

I would like to ask questions on how to upload a picture on Wikipedia and the rules and copyright things on it if possible . ButteyFelicity (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The most authoritative thing I can say on this subject is that you’re definitely right to ask these questions, but that’s about the limit of my expertise on the subject.

My understanding is that any media files on Wikipedia pages come from Wikimedia Commons. There is a way to connect profiles across Wiki projects, but Commons is a separate entity with its own rules and community standards.

If you click on any picture on Wikipedia, and then click “details”, that will bring you to the file’s page on Commons. Info about the copyright status is always included on file’s Commons page.

There is probably some specific Help board for Commons-specific questions, but I don’t even know what that would be, so I would recommend asking for further info at WP:Teahouse, which is the general Help board. Mikewem (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Interacting with JJNito197

This is a warning to you from me, please stop interacting with me, casting aspersions, and generally not assuming good faith. You do not assume AGF with me and I will escalate the matter if you continue. You clearly have a problem with the editor not the content. I will seek a user interaction ban from you if you continue to do so as you are obstructing me from editing in good faith. Following me around various articles does not help you either. It's a form of Wikistalking. JJNito197 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the content of the post was correct, but the forum was not correct. I agree that JJNito is a disruptive editor, and I believe his participation there is a barrier to improving the page. I am willing to discuss this in an administrator's forum, if you can point me in the right direction about where to open a case... Slava570 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I would love for either of you @Slava570 to have proof for these accusations. You should both bear in mind, on wikipedia we care about the content not the editor. As an admin has now seen what I saw, I was right the entire time. None of you brought forward suggestions for improvement? Rather you thought the status quo was sufficent. JJNito197 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we should not discuss the content of the article here. I would like to discuss behavior, but I don't know where. Slava570 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Slava570, cbans get proposed and adjudicated at WP:ANI. In my view it’s not unreasonable to first discuss at the article in question how to best improve the article in question. I don’t know for sure if this is the best way to improve the article, because as just one guy, I can’t really know anything about the will of the community for sure (without first taking the temperature of the community). If there were a consensus of editors to say that we absolutely can improve the article in x,y,z ways without the need of a cban, then that’s what I would go with. Mikewem (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you think it's ok to do it twice in a row? Slava570 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

That’s part of the reason I thought it might be prudent to start on the article Talk page for a workshop and consensus of ideas that will ultimately allow us to make improvements to the article. Given JJN’s continued disruption even after sanctions, I can’t imagine that an editor would get in trouble for seeking a solution to ongoing disruption at the venue where ongoing disruption is addressed. It is unusual for there to be back to back to back reports, though it’s also unusual for editors to continue being disruptive after back to back reports which resulted in sanctions. Mikewem (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Another editor created a thread about the comportment of a third party in the Talk:Israelites page. In the process of reviewing their posting I came across this thread you created and I have raised that at the AN/I thread in question as alarming and irregular. As you were not one of the original parties named in the posting but I brought up your edits I felt it was likely policy required to give you a courtesy notice. Please review here. I would be interested to see what your reasoning was for trying to do, frankly, Arbitration case style workshopping in an article talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Simon, my interest is in improving the Israelites article. This is an irregular-ish situation (editors generally don’t continue disruptive activity after being sanctioned for that activity), so I started at the article for a workshop of how best to move forward with improvements to the article. It’s entirely possible that was incorrect for whatever reason. But my interest is in getting an improvement to content that has consensus through, and article talk pages are for discussing content improvements. I don’t know anything about arbitration case workshopping, and if I’ve offended in my attempt to improve the article, I’m sorry. Mikewem (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

ANI Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mikewem, and editor behavior, enforcing rules on sources and neutrality. Mevsherd (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that when there's an ANI thread about your behavior relating to another editor that you make sure you're appropriately tagging their work in a new article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Mikewem (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be a dick and I don't think you're doing this in bad faith, but it's easy to walk into a shit storm in your situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m backing slowly away. I could not make sense of your tag removal explanation, and I’m writing that at the article talk. Mikewem (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I actually just reverted, I clicked the source for the statement you tagged. I guess I am the dick. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It happens, no hard feelings. I’m still backing away from any helping at that article, because the message has been received loud and clear. Mikewem (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

Although I joined Wikipedia a few months ago, I've been horrible at editing Wikipedia. I just don't care going on Wikipedia anymore. I feel like giving up soon. I'm just done. I would rather read every single Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy nonstop than editing. I'm just SO bad. ImVeryStupid (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Naveed Akram article

Mike, I don't think we need a Naveed Akram (Australian) article. The shooting article {2025 Bondi Beach shooting) is quite sufficient. I have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveed Akram (Australian). Just an FYI, not canvassing your vote. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I was actually planning on nominating Marcus (informant). The coatracker strikes again, it would seem.

But for the record, I do have this stuff on my watch list, and I would have found my way to (and participated at) the AfDs regardless of this collegial notification. Though I do appreciate the collegial notification. Mikewem (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Creating a new page for a specific topic is the opposite of coatrack. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 04:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The shooting article is too long. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 04:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hostile edit summaries

For example: "03:32, 1 June 2026 ... Mikewem ... →Firearms: This is what happens when you go too fast and don’t take responsibility for your edits Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit." All that needed was "fixed typo", a name autocorrected to a neutral common word, a very minor error. That's just one example, I won't list them all, you know what I mean. Please stay calm and constructive. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 07:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025 Bondi Beach shooting, a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)