User talk:Boutboul

Welcome

genetic studies on jews - khazar

I wasn't sure if I should reply on your page. If this is bad Wiki etiquette, just delete the next couple of lines.

Dear Lastexpofan, I have seen that you changed some sentence in "genetic studies on jews". I would like to have your opinion about an argument I have with Jayjg about the possibility of some Khazar origin of Ashkenazim Talk:Genetic studies on Jews. We go round in circle and I think we need an external point of view. Could you tell if this kind of sentence could be added in the lead: "chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars"?--Boutboul (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way why did you remove the extract from D. Goldstein ?--Boutboul (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "And there is that troubling Y chromosome that is so common in the ashkenazi Levites but seemingly nowhere else to be found. I can not claim the evidence proves a Khazari connection.

But it does raise the possibility, I confess that, although I can not prove it yet, the idea does now seem to me plausible, if not likely?" I removed that because it was in a note and seemed unsourced, but if it's from a source I'm fine with it.

I don't know if I could get involved in that discussion between you and JayJG because I'm really busy right now, but maybe I could get involved later.--Lastexpofan (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

the italian/ tuscan/ southern european component

Michael, thanks for the message. I am a little uncomfortable with the deletion, but I think I can accept it. On the other hand if you also feel uncomfortable with it, I think in principle we should look for a compromise sentence? Can you tell me your position? Is it the same? I am not 100% clear on what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Conversion table for Y chromosome haplogroups for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Conversion table for Y chromosome haplogroups is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversion table for Y chromosome haplogroups until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Boutboul. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Bonjour cher monsieur, je suis un ex directeur de recherche à l'INRAE qui écrit un ouvrage et aimerait discuter avec vous de la génétique des populations juives, sachant que vous êtes le principal contributeur de l'artice Wikipédia concernant ce sujet. Merci de votre attention ! jacques.barnouin(at)free.fr Jacques barnouin (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Désolé pour ma réponse tardive, je viens de voir votre message. Je serai ravis de discuter avec vous mais je tiens à signaler que je n'ai aucune compétence dans le domaine mis à part le fait d'avoir pris le temps de lire les très nombreux articles sur le sujet.

Cordialement,

Michael Boutboul Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fondation Maeght, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calder. 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) 07:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Tunisia for Good Article Nomination

Bonjour! I have reviewed many of your edits to the History of the Jews in Tunisia article and I think it's been phenomenally improved. It is currently classified as Start-class, but I think it is at least a B, if not an A. I would be happy to help you revise it further (more on editing what is already there than adding new material) and nominating it for Good article status. What do you think of this? I would definitely like to add more references that are direct rather than an sfn because I find those easier to review as a reader. All the best and happy holidays, Kazamzam (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind message. There is still a lot of work to do, and I will continue improving the article in the coming days. I truly appreciate your comments and revisions. I would be very happy if my contribution helped in nominating it for Good Article status. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Boutboul - of course! I will do my best as well, and if you have any thoughts, comments, or concerns, I am happy to discuss. Please be sure to ping me (using the @ symbol) so that I will be alerted to your reply when it's on your talkpage (good Wikietiquette!). Kazamzam (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Boutboul - something important to note: the Jewish Virtual Library is not considered a reliable source per the list used as a general guideline. It's okay to mention some of their claims as long as they are backed up by other references but please keep this in mind going forward. We're making progress nevertheless! Kazamzam (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam, I didn't know it, I checked and it is more related to ARBPIA but anyway, there is noJewish Virtual Library Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam, what could we do to improve it a little bit more? Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Boutboul - sorry for the delayed response! I will take a look and get back to you later today! Kazamzam (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Boutboul - This is looking good! My concerns so far are the needs for additional/better citations, removing any subjective language, removing overlinking, and making sure that everything being discussed is specific to the Jews of Tunisia rather than the Jews of the Maghreb more broadly. For example, the discussion about the conversion of the Berber tribes...is it relevant? Does it need to be stated? How do we know that it's specific to Tunisia? These are things that could be removed to make the article's information more clear and specific. Let me know what you think! Kazamzam (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@KazamzamSorry for my late reply, I was busy.

For example, the discussion about the conversion of the Berber tribes...is it relevant?

According to me, yes it is relevant because at that time Tunisia did not exist so it is quite difficult to find sources only talking about this specific area. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Boutboul - that's a good point and should be a pertinent point of the article itself. Tunisia as a nation state is new but settlement in the area that is now Tunisia is thousands of years old. We can try to find information from areas that are now within Tunisia, i.e. records from Djerba and Tunis, but I think including information about things that happened anywhere in the Maghreb is too broad. If something happened in Tripoli or Rabat, there's no guarantee it also happened in Tunisia. I would rather be selective than make claims that are overly broad and therefore inaccurate. It's an editing philosophy and I admit that not everyone agrees with it. Kazamzam (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kazamzam, I don't have a definitive opinion on the matter and am happy to align with your philosophy. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Getting this to GA is a good project. There's a lot of good work in there. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@SashiRolls, @Kazamzam what to do next? Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

History of the Jews in Tunisia

added links pointing to Plague, Absolutism, Squadron and Assessor

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

New source for article

Bonjour! I am adding some sources from A History of the Jews in North Africa by H.Z. Hirschberg, published in 1974. Volume one focuses on antiquity to the sixteenth century. If I can get volume two from my library, I will add more soon. Cheers, Kazamzam (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, it seems interesting Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the Jews under Muslim rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Fenton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Paul Fenton (Historian) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Paul Fenton (Historian). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Jamiebuba (talk) 16:45, 22 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 Boutboul. Thank you. —IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

AE result

Boutboul, the AE case has been closed with a warning to accept consensus, to use caution with sources, and to avoid POVpushing, especially at CTOPs. As I do with most less-experienced editors at CTOPs, I highly recommend you consider gaining more experience outside of PIA before making arguments there. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for disruptive editing, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war).

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. 

Valereee (talk) 13:01, 20 April 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."

You are on extremely thin ice, here. This is a block from a single article, not even its talk page, and I think there's an extremely high likelihood other admins will feel I've undercorrected. Learn fast, or stop editing in PIA. Period. Valereee (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee I did what you suggested me to do, I don't understand can you explain? Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That question indicates either WP:CIR issues -- hard to believe from someone with a PhD in applied physics and perfectly idiomatic English -- or intentional obtuseness. The next step is removal of talk page access. Would you like to reconsider your approach here? Maybe sleep on it before you respond. Valereee (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Come on, Michael. I could almost be persuaded to believe this was an innocent mixup if you'd just used the placeholder text that Valeree gave. But you gave the original Cicero quote, while linking to Lorem ipsum, indicating that you obviously understand what Lorem text is. It is patently unbelievable that, despite knowing that, you would take Valereee's comment as an instruction to propose adding a Cicero quote to the section as something for readers to reflect on. This is just trolling. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I know it sounds hard to believe, but it wasn’t a troll. I genuinely thought she asked me to include the original sentence, but she got it mixed up. Why would I do something that stupid on purpose? I’m just too candid. Michael Boutboul (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve never trolled any forum in my entire life. Why would I use my account (and not an IP address) to do it—especially when it has my real name? Why would I deliberately kill myself like that—socially, emotionally, and with no gain whatsoever? Michael Boutboul (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

There were two steps in the block process:

• First step: Blocked from editing the page Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war

I added the following sentence: "On Sunday, 30 November 1947, armed Arabs ambushed a Jewish bus at Kfar Sirkin en route from Netanya to Jerusalem, killing five passengers. This incident, just hours after the United Nations voted to partition Palestine, is generally regarded as marking the start of the [first Arab-Israeli war]." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_war&diff=prev&oldid=1286337987), placing it at the beginning of the "Massacre" section. This comes from Ian Black, a non-partisan journalist. I quoted it directly to avoid any misinterpretation of the source.

Valereee raised concerns about the sentence. I explained that the event is widely known and supported by reliable scholars like Benny Morris and Ilan Pappé (who is known for his anti-Zionist perspective). Although she acknowledged the event was well sourced, she said I should not have added it in that way.

I have learned that, in sensitive topics like this, it is better to propose changes on the talk page first, even if the information is well sourced and not challenged.

• Second step: Blocked from Wikipedia

Valereee suggested adding a sentence like "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua" as an introduction to the "Massacre" section.

I didn’t recognize the sentence, so I researched it and found out it is a dummy Latin text used in the printing and web design industries. I was confused about the suggestion, but since it came from an administrator, I tried to find a logical reason. I discovered that the phrase is loosely based on a sentence by Cicero. So I attempted to link the section with a philosophical reflection from Cicero and used the original Latin sentence. I said, "It is a good idea for the Latin sentence," but she didn’t realize that I had misunderstood her — I actually didn’t understand the suggestion at all.

This was a huge misunderstanding. I was naive and made a poor decision, but I did not act with bad intent or try to troll.

I have learned that I should ask for clarification before taking action when I don’t fully understand a suggestion.

I hope this explains the situation and shows that I’ve learned from the experience. Thank you for your time and consideration.Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Closing this since it's now at XRV. -- asilvering (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2025 (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.

So your defense is that this is indeed an issue of WP:CIR rather than trolling? I'd be willing to consider a tban from PIA as a condition for unblocking. That would allow you to develop a level of competence sufficient to edit in the topic area. Would that be acceptable to you? Valereee (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee If you believe that misunderstanding the meaning of this sentence — I'm thinking we could add something like this as the lead sentence in that section: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..." — is considered WP:CIR issue, I would be very suprised, though it's possible I'm missing some Wikipedia "code". But I can assure you I was definitely not trolling. What would be the expected duration of the TBAN? Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd be willing to go with appealing at AN or AE after three months and 500 productive non-gaming edits outside the topic. That would put you at ~2000 edits, which is a point at which most people start to know what they don't know, know where to go to check their understanding, and at worst know where to ask to be pointed in the right direction. (Clue: WP:Teahouse.) And that gives others at those venues enough data points to assess whether you're getting it.

I'm truly sorry you misunderstood, but there are multiple things you had to misunderstand in order to do so, which is an example of why we advise people to avoid CTOPs until they have a fair grounding in policy. I advised you of that multiple times and in multiple places, literally using terms like minefield and thin ice and digging the hole deeper, and you just ignored it. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears that I don't really have the choice, do I? So yes, I take it. Regards Michael Boutboul (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You do have a choice. You can ask for a review at WP:XRV. I will lift your block on Wikipedia space to allow this. Valereee (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The block is lifted from WP space. You are now free to discuss at Administrative action review. WP:XRV. Valereee (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I inform you that I have filed an unblock request at WP:XRV. I was unable to inform you on your talk page because I am currently blocked. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Boutboul, I was slower than the closer, but @Valereee referred to any experienced editor you trust, and while I don’t consider myself experienced compared to many in the topic area, I nevertheless hope that you consider taking my advice and reconsidering this 90/500 option. FortunateSons (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

And I'll confirm: that tban with appeal to WP:AN/WP:AE at 90 days/500 edits option is still open. Michael, all I want is for you to get more productive experience editing without the added issues of a CTOP. Valereee (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee, thank you once again for offering me the opportunity to accept your proposal. I accept it, as I feel I have no other choice.

I have made around 80% of my edits outside CTOP, and adding 500 more edits will not help me improve within CTOP. The rules there are quite different, often unwritten, and the only real way to improve at CTOP is by contributing directly to it.

Therefore, I cannot see this requirement as anything other than a form of punishment.

As I have already mentioned, I reserve the right to go to Trust & Safety. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Try submitting another unblock request. It doesn't have to be lengthy, just put your acceptance of the tban in the request. Stedil (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I assume that if you can understand the message, she probably can too. I posted it just three days ago, so I’d prefer to give her some time to respond. Michael Boutboul (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you once again for offering me the opportunity to accept your proposal : to go with appealing at AN or AE after three months and 500 productive non-gaming edits outside the topic.

I accept it, as I feel I have no other choice.

I have made around 80% of my edits outside CTOP, and adding 500 more edits will not help me improve within CTOP. The rules there are quite different, often unwritten, and the only real way to improve at CTOP is by contributing directly to it.

Therefore, I cannot see this requirement as anything other than a form of punishment.

As I have already mentioned, I reserve the right to go to Trust & Safety.

Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Since Valereee hasn't edited in a few days, and had already indicated that she would accept an unblock under these terms, I will accept. I don't think I actually am allowed to impose a formal restriction on your right to appeal to AE, though. I guess I could make it an unblock condition on top of the AE TBAN, but that seems shady, like when plea deals in the U.S. require the defendant to say they won't challenge the constitutionality. So I'm just going to accept, issue a standard AE TBAN, and strongly advise you that an appeal before the 3 months / 500 edits mark would be unlikely to succeed.

Note that this is separate from your p-block from Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war, which can only be overturned at AE and thus remains in place (but regardless is redundant with the TBAN). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for the reasons described above.

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.  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome back. I just wanted to ask you a favor since you are currently page blocked from a single page. Can you check to see if this prevents you from logging into the Wikipedia library? If it does, and given that the page block is entirely redundant, you might mention that you'd like to have access to the library again in any appeal you formulate. I say this because I too was once kicked out of the library and was glad to get my card back. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message. Yes, indeed I lost my access, thanks for the information. Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin @Valereee Maybe this is an IAR rationale, but it seems a bit silly for him to have a p-block when his tban obviously covers the article. I feel like someone could help guide Michael through the process or just cut to the chase. Or start an ARCA about it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree it's a strange state of affairs. I'd support an amendment to CTOP that says a TBANning admin can at their discretion lift an AE p-block that has been made wholly redundant. Failing that, though, I'd say if Valereee doesn't respond within a few days here, Boutboul should just file an AE appeal to the p-block, under WP:CTOPAPPEALS community review standard 3, the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption, just saying "This partial block is no longer necessary because it is redundant with my TBAN, while having the downside of disabling my Wikipedia Library access. Captain Eek and Tamzin told me to submit this appeal", linking to this thread. (To avoid a second round of confusion over suggested wording, I'll be clear: Feel free to copy what I just said verbatim.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

OK clear, thank you for your message Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I've unblocked. Valereee (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

IP edit?

Hi @Michael Boutboul, did you make this edit?: [1] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @IOHANNVSVERVS, not at all! But as you can imagine, I think it makes sense ;-) Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes I can imagine. Especially since it's the exact same uniquely wrong argument you were repeatedly making before you were banned, and using the same sources and arguments. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

And French, too. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean, the IP address is in France? Michael Boutboul (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, that’s not me Michael Boutboul (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

For reasons I can't get into, I have serious doubts the IP is Boutboul -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

So many people on my talk page discussing what I could have written somewhere on Wikipedia — I didn’t know I was that important. Just to be clear:

• I haven’t used an IP address to edit since I created my account 15 years ago.
• I don’t hide behind a nickname — I edit under my real name.
• I don’t troll.

I have plenty of flaws, but not those ones.

@Guerillero, thanks for your message — I suppose I understand why it was so obvious to you that I didn’t make that edit. Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not that you're so important (I don't mean this as an insult, none of us are particularly important), only that keeping the I-P area merely to low-level hostility with occasional blowups requires a great deal of vigilance by the community. Sockpuppets and loutsocking are an eternal problem in the area (look up Icewhiz if you're curious [2]), so when an IP editor jumps right into the middle of a conversation, the natural inclination is to check things out. I've been delighted to see you improving History of Benin and improving articles in areas that need more coverage, so I'm happy it wasn't you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)