Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • Clear-cut cases of simple vandalism and spamming should be reported to AIV
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
  • Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:Kolya75Media

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kolya75Media (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ongoing additions of unsourced or poorly sourced content for three years, often with no edit summary and ignoring page history, including repeatedly attempting to push through their preferred changes despite reversions. They've had numerous warnings (including several level 4) and acknowledged one here, but clearly have no intention of stopping the behavior. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 02:53, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Randomly checked, of the last 500, this editor has100+ reverts Ar1201u1 (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Multiple pages have been edited with poor sources by this editor. Surprisingly, Multiple warning spanning from last few years and still no improvement or an effort to understand the difference between reliable and unreliable source. I do not believe the user will stop now. RangersRus (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

the editor seems to be editing with IP on same pages, Special:Contributions/~2026-51732-94, reverting changes back to what User:Kolya75Media made.RangersRus (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

There's a lot of crossover and potential COI/UPE going on in that subject area. I suspect it would take a large scale SPI to untangle things. I've probably had half a dozen or so accounts coming back repeatedly to edit war unsourced stats on the main article that landed on my watch list via Interceptor, and reported several of them on various noticeboards. Most have less history than this one though. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 20:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Hm. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 20:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Still continuing to edit war on Hanuman Ansh with no regard for intervening edits or the ongoing talk page discussion. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 03:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Suggest this edit be considered as well: Special:Diff/1376838091 ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 01:43, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Behavior continues despite not one but two temp blocks. Request indef per WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 20:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

See also User talk:Kolya75Media#c-Kolya75Media-20261003155500-Pasados-20260922183100. Clearly doesn't care for WP policy. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 20:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More airport disruption

This discussion is a followup to the related discussion (also started by Danners430) archived at Reywas92 - Repeated civility failings, aspersions, and refusal to take responsibility for their edits

I’m beginning to lose the will with Aviation at this point…

Vanguard10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding commentary to Melilla Airport (, even after they were notified that commentary doesn’t belong in Wikipedia articles, both on their user talk and the article talk. Then after being informed that Google Flights fails WP:RS, they still add it as a source anyway , and have finally simply removed the entire table, including numerous pieces of well-sourced content . I’m just giving up at this point. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Danners430 report is wrong and accusatory. He/she is unnecessarily creating conflict. I asked him to create a RFC which he/she has refused to do. As such, his/her ANI complaint should be closed. Even better is to block him for 48 hours. ANI is not for content discussions or disputes.

The issue is that airport articles nearly always have destination charts. However, the Melilla Airport destination chart is 54% wrong and deceptive. 54% of the flights are not listed because of Danners' insistence of a citation that meets his/her approval. A citation for Malaga-Melilla air service was provided along with a tag to call for an even better reference is unacceptable to Danners.

I am not war-like and plan to stop editing right now. Let Danners get his way even though that is not the Wikipedia way. I am so sorry that Danners' aggression results in bullying. Instead, there should be polite discussion of the pros and cons but Danners will have none of that. He/she has been in edit disputes with others.Vanguard10 (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not obligated to create an RfC because another user asks/tells me to - if you want one (not that I even know what it would be about) then you are free to create one… I am not obligated to do it for you. You added an unreliable source and even recognised that in your edit summary - hence it was removed. I have pointed you to WP:VNT and WP:BURDEN. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I protest the title of "More airport disruption". More suggests repeated. I have not had any recent contact with Danners until 30 minutes ago. I don't know what his/her problem is. Maybe he/she is too stressed as evidenced by his/her first sentence of "I'm beginning to lose the will with Aviation..."

Vanguard10 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't say that you caused the previous disruption. It's more disruption in the airport topic, a notorious area of this encyclopedia where people constantly bring in poorly sourced flightcruft. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Just a note: Danners430 uses masculine pronouns, as mentioned as part of the talk header on his user talk. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 07:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

We do not require destination charts for airports if they're not properly sourced. The purpose of our airport articles is not to serve as a database for various aircruft and flightcruft. If something is sourced, it may be included with consensus. if something is not sourced, it may not. If 54% of the flights to this airport don't have reliable, independent sources, then that 54% of flights to this airport ought not be listed on English Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a travel agent. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I have nothing to add about any underlying issues as I haven't looked that deeply into it, but yeah generally articles on the aviation topic here on Wikipedia could see improvement. However, Vanguard10 has complained about Danners430 at User talk:ToBeFree#I regret to inform you (diff) and User talk:Fnlayson#Airport destination chart (diff). Possible forum shopping? Fork99 (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

No, Forks. This type of issue is a content issue that should not be on ANI but first resolved among editors. Danners430 did not. Instead, he/she ran to ANI within 30 minutes or so, which is an abuse of process and highly aggressive. Wikipedia is not a battleground but he/she keeps on doing it, including to others. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Considering your apparent cavalier attitude towards WP:V and that you think it matters that some random website suggests using Wikipedia for a non-Wikipedia purpose, what exactly could possibly be resolved? That you're adding unsupported prose and don't seem very concerned why that's a problem means that the disruption going forward wouldn't just be this edit to this article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

See [] Quote: 4) What next? Educate yourself (on Wikipedia?)
So you’ve done all of these things, and prices are still high. What else can you do? Do you know every airline that flies from your local airport and where they fly to? I bet that you don’t. I hate to say it, but Wikipedia is one of the best resources to find out the flights from any airport. See, people use Wikipedia for accurate airport destinations chart so if a chart has 54% of flights missing, that is a huge reputational hit against Wikipedia. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. That is policy. The fact people misuse Wikipedia as a travel guide does not magically alter Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Vanguard10: If you would like to go beyond Wikipedia's policy on articles not being travel guides, may I suggest you head on over to WikiVoyage? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:23, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be wonderful if Wikipedia took a huge repetitional hit as a travel guide, a database of flights, a depository for indiscriminate information, or a vault of aircruft. It might actually slow the flow of people who come in here and violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to try and improve Wikipedia's reputation for all of these things. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note I should say that the pronoun "they" is a perfectly cromulent word. ~2026-50236-34 (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Your reference has embiggened this discussion! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The most recent RfC on this question concluded with the result that primary sources were fine to use for these tables. Katzrockso (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Can confirm, as one minor point @CoffeeCrumbs - primary sources are fine, although of course secondary is preferred as per normal policy Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Vanguard10 I told you to please stop splitting discussions - for the third time now, there is a notice at the top of my talk page (and it's duplicated as a page edit notice) that if the discussion in question is elsewhere, respond there not my talk page. This is now the third time I've reverted your additions to my talk page because you have ignored this notice - please stop posting on my talk page if the matter in question is being discussed elsewhere. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I think one of Vanguard10's notes on another editor's page to complain about Danners430 makes it clear who needs a stern warning.

The reason is because there is a user (whose name is unimportant but is Danners430, if you want to know) that insists that a destination must never be listed unless it has a reliable source citation that is not the airline (and probably has to be a news story). He does not accept Google.com listings, calling it a booking engine. Iberia Regional/Air Nostrum operates 9 daily flights from Melilla to Malaga, representing 54% of the flights but it is not in the chart. Danners insists on removing it even if I put a [citation needed] tag and a less than perfect reference. Since 54% error rate makes the chart deceptive, inclusion of Melilla > removal of chart >> deceptive chart.

Vanguard10, this is not how Wikipedia sourcing works. I still don't understand why airlines/airports is thought by so many people to be this magical part of Wikipedia where sourcing is just a gentle suggestion. Sourcing is the point of Wikipedia. Once again, Wikipedia is not a travel agent. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

And Danners430, I still think it would be a good idea for you to spend less time with airlines, not because you're doing anything incorrect, but because I think it's going to drive you batshit crazy, and I think that you should put your own well-being ahead of an area of Wikipedia that's insufficiently managed right now. Or at least spend the energy brainstorming some ideas at the village pump that have a better chance of stopping the problem; the airline area is a bit like bailing water out of a boat with a measuring cup, and the better solution is to try and build better boats. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Realistically, at this point I feel like a blanket semi-protection is all that will help… the vast majority of issues aren’t from experienced editors like Vanguard10 but TAs! On the other hand though there are plenty that make very constructive edits in the space… realistically I think the best thing for the WikiProject would simply be more eyes on articles, as it seems like there’s only a small core of editors in the space right now doing recent changes Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. There are two active ANI threads right now about airport-related nonsense. The worst part is that Danners is completely correct in the fact that unsourced content is bad, and yet people keep doing it! GarethBaloney (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I am actually amazed that an editor like Vanguard10 with over 2,000 edits still doesn't understand WP:V, much less cause disruption because they don't understand it. That is a very suboptimal idea and I'd strongly suggest to them that it stops now. But I'd agree with CoffeeCrumbs here, this is an area that will drive you insane very quickly. Whilst it wouldn't have made a difference here, I actually wonder if it would be worth just indefinitely semi-protecting all airport articles... Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand WP:V and provided a reference and a tag to invite a better reference. Danners430 then went to ANI, which is inappropriate for a content dispute in its early stage. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} is not a reference and does not render content immune to being removed as unreferenced per WP:V, and if a provided reference is not to a reliable source the content is in fact unreferenced and can be removed by any user at any time per WP:V. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the other editor means , since they said they added a source. Katzrockso (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

My last comment was a bit of an incomplete train of thought, but I think I’ve completed it now… I don’t think that would actually be worthwhile - there are a good number of high quality contributions in this space made by TAs, so I think that would be contrary to the intent of protection personally. If this is something to think about, I’d maybe suggest PC instead of protection…? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:39, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

PC does not impact cleanup effort, so unfortunately it wouldn't help this situation. It is a natural occurrence that tables and lists attract unsourced edits (in other topic areas too), we haven't really figured out a solution to that. CMD (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Why have neither of you looked for independent sourcing rather than continuing this dispute? This is not a hard-to-verify topic. Fences&Windows 21:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

How does Google Flights fail RS? Katzrockso (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Google Flights is a search engine that gathers data from … that’s on you to find out. Per WP:USEORIGINALSOURCE, you should be citing original sources (e.g., information published by or about the airport) rather than what an aggregator says. I don’t even consider Google Flights reliable for booking flights; most of the “booking” links it spits out go to dubious travel agencies that use bogus prices to game the search engine. White 720 (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Press reports or news stories are usually not the most accurate. Many of them say that service is planned at a future date, sometimes a few months away. Better yet is to confirm from the airline's website that you can book a ticket and also confirm flight status of yesterday's flights. The unintended consequence of some peoples' rules is that they are denying the most accurate sources and insisting on crystal ball type predictions or press releases from non-secondary sources. WP:V does not say "it's ok to be wrong or inaccurate, just have a source". It should be both, ideally, and at least correct. The part of Wikipedia that says that we just want sources, not be correct, is usually the most accurate for opinions but for hard facts like flights to cities, true accuracy and correct info is best. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're buying a ticket yes. If you're making an article on Wikipedia, which is absolutely not a booking site or a travel agent, then no. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Just imagine how easy it would be to write articles if <ref>Google</ref> were a valid citation! White 720 (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

And this, right here, is one of the issues with simply placing a ref tag to an airline homepage… you’re expecting the reader to look up the information themselves instead of actually providing a source that verifies the content. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Note: Vanguard10 has supposedly retired. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Yet has continued to respond to this ANI thread after that edit anyways, see above in the thread (after 07:52, 16 September 2026). Declaring that one has retired should not be a reason to discontinue an ANI discussion. Fork99 (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, hence the word "supposedly". Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Please stop attacking me. Have you heard of semi-retired? Have you heard of what should have been a friendly content discussion turn immediately into Danners ANI complaint. That is very aggressive and takes the wind out of productive editing. In other words, Danners has damaged Wikipedia and Jauerback/Fork99 continues the damage by attacking editors. This toxicity in Wikipedia must stop. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you would retire mid-ANI but ok, I will assume good faith. GarethBaloney (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Jauerback/Fork99 continues the damage by attacking editors. Please point to exactly where Jauerback or I have attacked you, otherwise this is casting aspersions. I have only stated a fact without any opinion, backed by evidence. Fork99 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

You mildly attacked me for making a comment. However, I do concede that you have not acted as savagely as Danners and for that, thank you. I do stand by my comment that toxicity in Wikipedia must stop. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

So you repeatedly make edits without reliable sources, restore unsourced content in full knowledge the source you’re using isn’t sufficient, and yet you’re angry at toxicity on Wikipedia…? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:15, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

False accusation of "repeatedly make edits without reliable sources" and false accusation of being angry. You brought a mild content discussion to ANI within minutes. You have been blocked before, multiple times. You are part of toxicity in Wikipedia. I wish I wouldn't have to say the truth but you are toxic. Please examine your behavior and inappropriate ANI use. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. This toxicity is why I have retired from Wikipedia with the exception of making limited comments to this active ANI report. Please, people, no toxicity on Wikipedia! Vanguard10 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

So you’re ignoring all the comments above where you’ve been told sourcing isn’t optional, the diffs above don’t exist, and you’re resorting to personal attacks…? Gotcha. A day ago I was about to suggest we could just close this since you retired, but given the sealioning I think there’s still something to be discussed… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are attacking me. I have provided citations. Others have, too. Rather than discuss the content dispute or content question, you bring it to the highest level possible, ANI. There is even a lower level, WP:AN. Your behavior is so toxic, which harms Wikipedia. I don't even want to edit now, just wrapping up this ANI and Wiki-retire. You have been blocked before and recently. Blocking is to prevent Wikipedia damage, not punishment. You damage Wikipedia and add to toxicity in WP. So sad. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

These are the four edits that you, personally, have made to Melilla Airport:

1. — Adds no citations.
2. — Adds a {{cn}} tag.
3. — Adds a {{cn}} tag and a citation to Google Flights, which is not a reliable source, as discussed above.
4. — Deletes the table of airlines and destinations.

I had to go to the eleventh most recent edit you have made to article space to find an example where you added citations to a reliable source, and in that case, you still didn't do so properly; you cited the same article twice, both times using a bare URL that someone else will need to deduplicate and replace with a Cite news template. Several of your more recent updates introduce statements of facts with no citations at all. Do you understand what it means to properly provide citations, and how you have generally refused to do so, reacting with cries of victimhood and attacks against people who have made well-founded criticisms of your behavior? White 720 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Vanguard10, you used the {{Retired}} template and not the {{Semi-retired}} template. When two editors discussed it, you went after both of them claiming you were semi-retired. Now we have this whole side discussion going on where you claim that Jauerback and Fork99 have both attacked you for discussing your retirement/semi-retirement status, then a double down that Fork99 "mildly attacked" you for making a comment, and multiple claims against Danners430 that are inappropriate in my view. I believe that the law of holes applies to this situation. My advice is for you to change your retired template to semi-retired if you are going to just semi-retire and to avoid articles that are tied to WikiProject Aviation if you want to avoid the issues that led to this discussion. If you are otherwise going to retire permanently, then accept whatever decision is decided here and move on. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will heed your advice. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

unsure if you are aware but your comment has dissapeared from the discussion, i cant find anyone removing it so dont know what to suggest. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 12:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Funny enough, you removed the comment yourself Jabba550 in this edit when you were trying to move your comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Shoot, feel free to trout, Did not mean to do that... Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 08:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I figured you didn't mean to. (If you want, there is a {{self trout}} template.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Support a T-Ban on Aviation Given the disregard for reliable sources and battleground mentality displayed above. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree, support topic ban on Danners430 for being so toxic and bringing the content matter to ANI within minutes without a genuine discussion. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

GIven your response and @White 720:'s evidence of the same behaviour at other topics I now move to Support an indefinite block of Vanguard1-+0. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Aviation topics for Vanguard10, who is the one who is actually being toxic here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Support topic ban for aviation and anything mechanical or business for The Bushranger because she/he is weaponizing ANI. Toxicity is trying to weaponize ANI or WP instead of discussion. The Melilla Airport article had only a few minutes of discussion then it was brought to ANI, totally improper. ANI specifically states "This noticeboard is for reporting urgent behavioral incidents or issues that require administrator intervention. Do not use this page to resolve content disputes. Content disputes should be addressed through dispute resolution processes." Vanguard10 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Just noting I've blocked @Vanguard10 31h for the above as well as their disregard for core policies. THis does not preclude the t-ban proposal or any other outcome from proceeding. Star Mississippi 02:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Besides that, they seem to be supporting tbans for anyone against them. also The Bushranger is also male. It's on his user page. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 04:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Vanguard10 has posted this on their talk page:

I have learned that in WP, if you are falsely accused, just suck it up and do not respond, if possible. Therefore, I am violating that principle by responding. However, I will not talk at ANI now.

This is raising two red flags… first they’re choosing not to respond here. Fine. But second, even after the numerous editors both here and on their talk page explaining in great detail the problems with their editing, they still fail to recognise the issues with their editing.

@Vanguard10 - as has been stated multiple times… you twice added commentary to a Wikipedia article, even after being explicitly told not to. You then added content sourced to a source which by your own words was inadequate, yet added it anyway. Finally, you simply blanked an entire section without good reason, despite it being mostly well sourced. These are facts, and diffs are above. You are not being falsely accused, you are being held accountable for problematic behaviour. Or are you saying the edits which are linked are in line with policy?

At this point, given the consistent WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour, I too am in favour of an indefinite block. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that a topic ban on aviation is sufficient here; Vanguard10's inattention to site policies spans multiple topics. Recent edits in their history show a variety of statements added to articles with no citation to a reliable source. For example, they claimed that a person had died without citing a source recently, violating both WP:V and WP:BLP (the latter of which applies both to the living and the recently deceased). I'm also concerned with their response to Super Goku V's comment above; they wrote that "I will heed your advice", but only heeded the part about changing their status from "retired" to "semi-retired". I see no evidence that they're going to stop making inappropriate claims, such as that any criticism of their behavior is evidence of "toxicity" and grounds for a retaliatory ban. White 720 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Also of note, Vanguard10 was reported to the edit warring noticeboard in 2018. After responding on the noticeboard, they declared their retirement on their talk page on 2018-05-08, although they continued to work actively on the encyclopedia for the rest of that month before taking a nearly 2-year break from the site. White 720 (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

(moved so as to not be in the middle of the discussion) Propose a SBAN Because of @Vanguard10's persistent battleground behavior as seen here: Support topic ban for aviation and anything mechanical or business for The Bushranger because she/he is weaponizing ANI. Toxicity is trying to weaponize ANI or WP instead of discussion. and I agree, support topic ban on Danners430 for being so toxic and bringing the content matter to ANI within minutes without a genuine discussion. in response to people supporting tban's, and also conveniently "semi retiring" 2 days after the ANI opens reeks of wp:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 12:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• A few notes. StarMississippi's block has expired: as they said themselves, it was lenient. Looking over Vanguard's talk page I'm inclined to simply block indefinitely, given their complete refusal to listen, but maybe this hasn't totally run its course yet? As a side note, User:Danners430, you'd be doing all of us, and yourself, a favor if you would stop commenting here--just stop. And I'm interested in hearing if The Bushranger and/or Jauerback have any thoughts--after all, it's the admins that will have to deal with this again if it happens again. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  It looks like a given to me. User has done a stupendous job of digging their own hole and continues to do so. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not Bushranger or Jauerback, so forgive me for sticking my nose in here! The clear point here and on Vanguard10's talk page is that Vanguard10 believes themself to be the victim here and has accepted no culpability for their actions regarding having added poor or uncited statements. They have definitely had the opportunity to, having responded to most of the relevant comments. At no time have they accepted that their actions were incorrect. Then, Vanguard10 has noted on their talk that their semi-retirement was primarily done to defuse the situation and avoid responding "to every accusation". A refusal to generally engage or accept any blame and/or learn from issues makes me supportive at this time of a further block. Nothing else appears to have worked, and actions so far indicate that Vanguard10 will otherwise continue not hearing us. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Drmies: if WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE doesn't apply it's danged close IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping @Drmies.

  I disengaged when they decided to frame the discussion as You, as an administrator, may ignore me, write something sarcastic, or give a specious response. which indicates to me they're not here in good faith when as far as I'm aware I had no prior interaction with them. I was patrolling ANI and do not edit aviation articles other than incidentally. I'm not familiar enough with their edits to know if a site ban would be a net negative to the project, but they seem distinctly unsuited to a collaborative and collegial editing environment. The block was to stop the name calling and battleground behavior here, but apparently I just moved it elsewhere. Would support a longer block. Have no opinion on @Ritchie333's proposal or whether it's ripe for ArbComm. Can we put all wrestling matches and pageants in airports? Star Mississippi 01:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Vanguard10's most recent talk page edit has declared that any further comments on their talk page about their most recent behavior, with the exception of "good faith comments by administrators", constitute harassment. They are clearly no longer interested in listening, and they are supposedly "retired" for the rest of the year. I remain concerned that they are uninterested in hearing any criticism of their behavior. White 720 (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Copying my response on their talkpage here, Hi, the only reason i came to your talk page was because i was looking through your edits (third the third or fourth time) to make sure i was still happy with my proposal. I agree, support topic ban on Danners430 and Support topic ban for aviation and anything mechanical or business for The Bushranger, Danners likes to revert own talk page so copying his teachings. Hello! is just plain bad attitude, and is the definition of battleground. And even after being told Reliable for booking flights yes - reliable per Wikipedia policy WP:RS no. you added it anyway and after having your commentary addition reverted you added it again . and your claim of "within minutes" was actually 12 hours after the discussion on the talk page began. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 08:45, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep airport destinations These are very useful for me as a reader. We should keep them. And primary sources should be sufficient (link to the airlines flight map). We should not need secondary sources for this. Please do not delete, and if EN WP rejects it at least move it to EN WV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wikivoyage, which has looser rules for citations, would be perfect for the destinations list. WV already has articles for many major airports, too. White 720 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wikivoyage has repeatedly said that they will not take the destination lists, so this is not a solution. ANI is not the forum to debate what to do with article content anyways. Katzrockso (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  Only a tiny fraction of airports meet Wikivoyage's equivalent of 'notability', so dumping thousands of airport articles on them is not realistic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  Would go in the article about the destination in question I think, not necessarily new airport articles. But needs discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  Right. If I may, as an admin on Wikivoyage: What's deterred us from taking this content in the past is the lack of a huge complement of editors such as you have on Wikipedia, who are able to keep this content current. If you all on Wikipedia decide that airport destinations are off-topic, would those of you who are currently maintaining them on Wikipedia be happy to migrate to Wikivoyage along with the material and continue to update and maintain it there (while continuing with whatever else you are doing at Wikipedia)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• I was originally going to vote in favor of Vanguard10, as it did seem a bit early for an ANI considering it had only been (at least according to the original comment) one article that was affected. It seemed more like a WP:RFC issue to me. However, after reading the whole thread, I am changing my opinion to supporting a WP:SBAN for Vanguard10. They have shown many violations of WP:CIVIL and seems unwilling to accept any responsibility for flawed edits in this thread. This seems to be verging into a potential WP:NOTHERE situation, which is why I support the SBAN.

• Support a topic ban on flights (1st choice) or a site ban (2nd choice). I still prefer the topic ban as they might be a better editor outside of this crufty dumpster fire area, but I'm not highly confident enough about that to be against a site ban, and I'm definitely against this simply drifting without action, likely leading us to have to do all the folderol and fiddle-dee-dee over again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support a site ban. Vanguard10 exhibits tendentious editing in other topic areas as well - bludgeoning discussions, casting aspersions, lying about the issue, disruption to make a point, etc. (Lengthy examples here, here, and here, if you're bored, plus a bad-faith AfD nomination as an attempt at forum-shopping). A topic ban on aviation would only shift this behavior to other areas. The last time their disruptive behavior was examined, they retired - and then returned. The phrase "net negative to the project" comes to mind; this retirement should be enforced. If they want to return, they should have to explain how their behavior will change. --Sable232 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Is there any consensus on a ban for Vanguard10? As of their most recent talk page edit, they estimate a 3% chance of coming back to the site or a 97% chance of being permanently retired, down from 30%/70%. They do seem interested in the question being discussed below about whether booking engines should be reliable sources, and they have some worthwhile things to say about it on their own talk page, although I remain concerned about their ability to remain a productive contributor to the encyclopedia, for reasons listed above. White 720 (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

People who suddenly talk about leaving often come back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support for the Topic Ban: I do assume that Vanguard10 will probably come back sometime in the future. Regardless, the disruption that Vanguard10 has done seems to be limited to aviation outside of this thread. I feel like removing aviation as a topic would give Vanguard10 an opportunity to edit elsewhere should they return. And if they cause more trouble, then we have given them enough Rope. (Regarding the Site Ban, I consider myself to be neutral to it and would only be considered in Support of it should the Topic Ban fail to achieve a consensus for it. Something should be done here, but I would prefer it be the Topic Ban.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

They’ve done the same before, they were reported to the edit warring noticeboard and then “retired” (continued editing for the rest of the month) and came back after 8 or so months. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 08:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support a Site Ban for Vanguard10. I had to read through some unpleasant exchanges to be sure of the depth of the problem. Sometimes when an editor complains at excessive length about "toxicity" it is because they are toxic, and are leaving an odor where they edit, and then complaining about the odor. Sometimes an editor who repeatedly proposes topic-banning their opponents is really an editor who views the community as their opponents. Sometimes when an editor has a long history of saying that they retiring from Wikipedia, under circumstances that appear to be gaming the system, the community should enforce their retirement. Sometimes an editor who appears to be a net negative appears that way because they really are a net negative. This is such a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose bans as it is unclear to me who is in the wrong. Content disputes, where the position of the community is unclear, should not generally be decided by banning one side or the other. Get consensus around appropriate sources and structuring of this content, and than if issues persist those not following consensus can have action taken against them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Is it time for Arbcom?

Above, I see someone saying "It's more disruption in the airport topic, a notorious area of this encyclopedia where people constantly bring in poorly sourced flightcruft." I don't fancy going and wading through the various quarrels I have seen myself, but two that come to mind are List of United Airlines accidents and incidents and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Mauritius destinations (plus the associated deletion review) simply off the top of my head.

If people are abandoning the topic of aviation out of exhaustion, it sounds like we've got a serious problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• User:Ritchie333, bro, just become an arb already: it's tons of fun! ;) Drmies (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• After reading the above, I'm glad I'm not a likely arb; you folks carry responsibility well. I agree that this topic might reasonably be considered contentious because of the A) constant and reckless insertions without high quality sources, and B) the likelihood of mis- or disinformation which may have a sizable influence on various markets. When we get this sort of thing wrong, it looks bad for everybody involved. Not quite BLP but this is becoming a real issue. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Okay, having just seen another incident that involves a) aviation b) Danners430 and c) edit warring and personal attacks, I'm thinking it may well be time for an arbcom case, if the evidence is there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm active, but less active than Danners430 on aviation articles and for the exact reason you mention "abandoning the topic of aviation out of exhaustion" I have ditched almost every non-United Kingdom airport article from my watchlist. There is definitely something here that needs fixing. Credit to @Danners430 for persisting. I'd love someone with big stick (Arbcom?) to come along and ban then remove airport destinations lists in their current cruft-magnet form. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't decide on content, so it certainly won't overrule the community consensus that these lists should stay. Katzrockso (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree, ArbCom would not (I should hope!) have the power overturn the established consensus on the lists. However if listing the topic area as contentious helps to keep away both intentionally disruptive, and good faith but inexperienced editors who aren't aware of all the back of house discussions that have shaped the consensus, then that could help to reduce the amount of questionable or unsupported edits and number of disputes that are escalated to AN/I. I am open to anything that helps make it easier for us all to keep these articles (and lists) up to date. I do think that if editors are feeling exhausted, consider stepping back a bit or narrowing their scope - I keep mostly Australian airports on my watchlist and find keeping this smaller subset up to date is much more manageable. There are still a few long term editors in this space who are not as prolific as Danners430, and will share this load across smaller subsets if given the space to do so. Dfadden (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Before ArbCom?

Ritchie333 asks: Is it time for ArbCom? Is the question whether an ArbCom case is needed about editing of airport articles? The mission of ArbCom is to resolve conduct disputes that the community is unable to resolve. There have been too many disputes about the editing of airport articles for years. In particular, lists of airline destinations have been a recurrent subject of disputes over a period of years, of which the Air Mauritius dispute mentioned by Ritchie333 is one of the more recent. So this appears to be a topic that the community cannot resolve.

However, before we ask ArbCom to accept a case on airline destinations and airport articles, we should ask what ArbCom is likely to decide if there is a case, and then ask whether the community has one last chance to resolve the issue before ArbCom. What ArbCom will do is to review the history of these disputes in a deliberative quasi-judicial manner, and then impose either or both of two types of sanctions, which are sanctions against disruptive editors, and a contentious topic designation for a topic. The community has the same power as ArbCom to impose either or both types of sanctions. In particular, community-enacted designation of a contentious topic now has the same force as ArbCom designation of a contentious topic. Is it likely that the community may be able to impose either type of sanctions by community action before asking ArbCom to intervene, and would such community action be effective? My answer to that is that it depends on which type or types of sanctions the community thinks are needed.

ArbCom procedures are designed to be more effective at identifying and sanctioning disruptive editors, and the community has elected the ArbCom to do the difficult work of reviewing the history of a topic. If the community thinks that it is necessary to determine which editors have been disruptive, that is what ArbCom is for. On the other hand, it doesn't require a detailed review to determine whether a topic is contentious, that is, whether a topic is frequently edited disruptively. So the question is whether we, the community, think that declaring airport and airline articles to be a contentious topic will minimize conflict, or whether we think that collection and review of evidence are needed to identify and sanction specific editors.

Another way of viewing the question is whether we are willing to have the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement deal with disruptive editing, or whether we think that an ArbCom case is needed.

The one thing that the community can try, before asking ArbCom to deal with the case, is a contentious topic ruling. Is that our last community action, or do we need ArbCom to identify and act against offenders? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

We had a few big RFCs on this subject. Is there a single page that summarizes the results? It would be easier to address these disputes if there were an "official" page that says something like: "In airport articles, a destination may be included only if it is accompanied by an inline citation that is not any of the following: example, example, example. Preferred sources include example, example, example." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree with WAID. If we can solve this content disagreement we can hopefully solve this dispute. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

By "this content disagreement", I assume that Doc James means whether and when airport destination lists are permitted as article content. I think that, as WAID says, we have had previous RFCs on the subject. So I have a few more questions:

• Is this purely a content dispute, or is this a content dispute that is complicated by conduct by some editors?
• Will resolving the content dispute be effective in resolving the conflict?
• Is it also necessary to take action to deal with the conduct issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Don't you think that if this was purely a content dspute without cnduct issues, this would have been closed long ago. If people are suggesting Tbans or getting blocked, if admins are suggesting bringing it to ArbCom, then it seems rather unlikely that this is "purely a content dispute" or that it is not "necessary to take action to deal with the conduct issues". Reading the above discussion before asking such questions would be helpful. Fram (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Fram - Maybe I was too subtle. I had read the previous discourse, and I know that disputes about lists of airline destinations have been recurring for years, and I didn't think that there is a simple content dispute. I see that a few editors are optimistic that a new RFC will resolve the issue, but I am not one of them (not an optimist). I was trying to ask whether the community needs to decide that airline destinations are a contentious topic, but maybe I was too subtle. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is one recent RFC regarding airport destinations lists and there was no consensus. Would recommend another RfC to hopefully get to consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Gotta agree here, we need an RFC to reach a consensus because the disruption that not having a policy laid out is causing is pretty bad. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 08:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Should airport articles list full and complete lists of destinations reachable from the airport, or to what extent should they be curtailed? is the wrong question to ask. The idea of "curtailing" these lists is absurd. What we have now is a mix of complete lists for some airlines and incomplete lists for others. Wikipedia is intentionally, at minimum spreading misinformation – I would say that it's actively lying to its readers – which is favoring some airlines over others and awarding them competitive advantages in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia should either make its best efforts to maintain full and complete lists, or not have these lists at all – there is no acceptable middle ground.

Additionally, if it is decided to retain some form of destination tables, it is my intention to have a further RfC to agree upon sourcing requirements for these tables, as this point too has been the subject of sometimes heated debates. No, this is not just a secondary concern. This is the key question, which needs an RfC to decide now. If we can't get a consensus on this, we simply cannot include these lists in airport articles. My browser counts "sourc" occurring in that RfC 308 times, and "reliable" 44 times. Yes, Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources, but these seem to often be difficult to find. In which case, we should be able to fall back on reliable primary sources until good secondary sources can be found. There seems to be some doubt over the reliability of airline booking engines or their websites. I can't recall ever booking a flight and then later being told, "sorry, our system made a mistake and offered you a flight that doesn't exist". If booking engines can't be trusted, then what can be? The idea that getting information from a booking engine is "original research" is also crazy. Airlines conduct original research to study the potential profitability of a route before they offer it. It's not original research to simply cite a published fact, even if the publisher is the primary source. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

So what you are saying is forget about one of Wikipedia’s fundamental pillars, reliable sourcing - let’s just put all the routes in regardless of whether reliable sources can be found? I’m sorry but that is absurd. If there are gaps in coverage, it’s because there are no reliable sources, or nobody has gone out to find them. This is why WP:TRUTH was written. As for the RfC - the second RfC regarding sourcing requirements was held, and the result was nearly unanimously to permit primary sourcing. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, well, thanks for linking me to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements. Let me study that, and get back to you. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

For context, the decision to split the RfCs into two was discussed at length during a WP:RFCBEFORE discussion, and was done specifically to focus the discussion and try to stop it growing arms and legs - one discussion on the fundamental question as to whether the lists should stay at all, and a second one to overturn a previous (in my opinion silly) consensus to ban primary sourcing in said lists. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

For context, I recall seeing this RfC, and was under the impression that was still the most recent discussion on that matter, and your recent edits to airport articles didn't disabuse me of that mistaken impression. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The RfCs are all recorded at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, which also tries its best to summarise them along with other general consensus. The outcomes of the two RfCs didn't change my editing style all that much... I already didn't remove primary sources, as I was working towards that RfC. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

(Thanks for the reminder that we need to deal with RFCBEFORE. That shortcut points to a section that's about how to not have an RFC in the first place. It is not about pre-discussing whether to have an RFC and/or how to phrase the question. But I've spent a couple of years telling people that they're using it wrong, and I'm giving up. I think the assumption that RFCBEFORE is similar to AFD's WP:BEFORE is just impossible to overcome at this point.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wbm1058, the problem with booking engines is that they produce search results, which means that nobody can look back at the same page later to determine whether the claim was verifiable at the time it was added to the Wikipedia article. From the prior RFCs, I think most editors accept using booking engines informally (e.g., to double check whether you've got an accurate list), but do not want to WP:CITE booking engines (or any other websites with ever-changing content).

Additionally, most official airport websites seem to contain a complete and up-to-date list of all destinations, so it's not necessary to using booking or tracking sites. Just cite the primary source and be done with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

So if it is "nearly unanimously to permit primary sourcing" for this material. And folks can cite both airport websites and airline flight route maps, is this not enough for a comprehensive list of destinations? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Plenty of airlines publish route maps, as do airports. There are also press releases by either. All of those were prohibited by the previous consensus, which is what the second RfC overturned. WhatamIdoing is referring specifically to booking engines, not route maps or press releases. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay so route maps from airports and airlines are now permitted as sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Aye, as long as you're not having to search for stuff (the booking engine issue WhatamIdoing referred to above), although even that would appear to be contentious in that I believed there had been an RSN discussion about them but can't locate it... On the flipside, a bad example of a route map would be Alaska Airlines (an example, just purely because it was the first one I found), which isn't a true route map - it's a search engine with a map attached... , or what British Airways call their "route map", which is just a list of destinations. That's fine... but it doesn't tell you where they fly from to get to that destination... and when you do eventually select a city, what's hiding... a booking engine. . A good example would be LOT, which is a true interactive route map showing you exactly where they fly to from each airport. . Provided you select non-stop and untick partners that is... Point being I suppose that yes in principle they're fine, but as with any type of source that's not a blanket statement! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sources properly archived by Internet Archive hopefully will solve verification issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

But the problem we're trying to solve is how to cite where airlines fly from & to today, not on some past date. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed... and still a problem to this day. One of the reasons why I voted to get rid of these lists in the first of the latest pair of RfCs. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 499#Flightconnections, Flightradar24 and FlightsFrom - reliable to verify airline routes? – wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

A rather ill-conceived RSN discussion, since it put three very different sources in a single discussion... I learned from that and later initiated a separate discussion for FlightRadar24 - the other two were less of a concern, so I haven't yet bothered. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 231#Airlines and destinations, from 9 years ago, and still not solved (: wbm1058 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wait. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 17 § RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables – The result of the discussion is that Option B should be implemented: references must be provided, and "searchable" websites are suitable for such references. Almost everyone agreed that WP:V was a priority, but more people felt it was acceptable that references didn't need to be perfect to be useful. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC) – So what's the problem with searchable booking engines? Was that 9-year old consensus subsequently overturned by a later discussion? wbm1058 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I never even went that far into the archives! As I said earlier, I was positive that the case of booking engines was discussed more recently at RSN (arguably the more appropriate venue) - however I personally can’t find the archive, which is why I recently stopped removing them when I do my cleanups. The main reason I haven’t started a new RSN discussion since then is I’m limiting my involvement atm due to illness (I hate man flu!) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

More recent discussion, two months ago: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 520#Airports/airlines as a source? wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that wasn’t it… I do recall that thread, wasn’t specifically about booking engines. I have a feeling my memory may simply be faulty, which isn’t exactly beyond belief! If I find some energy I’ll start an RSN discussion broadly around booking engines, as I do still feel that they shouldn’t be getting used. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem with limiting booking engines is that it's too damn hard to find viable alternatives! wbm1058 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Then why are we continuing this discussion at all? If we cannot find reliable sources for content, then it doesn’t belong on Wikipedia… it really is as simple as that. If that means lists are incomplete, then we either tag them as such, or remove them altogether. Completeness doesn’t, never will, and never should, usurp Verifiability. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Booking engines are reliable sources. Just not sources you like. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

But they have a limitation: Why can’t I find a seasonal flight on the airline’s website? Airlines only sell tickets inside their booking window, which usually extends six to nine months out. A seasonal route that isn’t flying and isn’t bookable yet simply won’t appear in search results, even though it’s coming back. Check again closer to the season, or look up the route on the airline’s site directly. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yah major booking engines are reliable. I have never seen them systematicaly wrong (unlike say the Daily Mail). That a specific search may not be archived makes them not ideal but I would not say we should ban them/never use them. We have a source call uptodate.com were one also cannot link to a specific version and we still sometimes use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help:

• Please {{cite news}}, including local newspapers and reputable industry magazines.
• Please cite airline and airport websites when the information is available in plain old text (e.g., the long list of cities you can see at https://www.flydsm.com/passengers/flights-and-travel/nonstop-destinations – scroll down below the map, or https://www.allegiantair.com/en/ – scroll down to "Allegiant Destinations - Cheap Flights to Anywhere " and click to expand the collapsed list).
• Try to avoid Travelocity, Google Flights, Kayak (company), Booking.com, etc. As always, any source is better than no source, but these aren't ideal.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

To avoid another discussion like this one, on that last bullet point, I think we should explicitly say not to use booking services as a source. Google Flights has a proprietary repository of flights that end users can’t see. The existence of a flight from airport A to airport B by airline C on date D does not back up the assertion that flights on C exist from A to B on an ongoing basis. Reliable sources should say that routes exist on a published timetable that everyone can see. White 720 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

No. Explicitly prohibiting booking services is why the endless discussions. It was settled 9 years ago to allow them, as a last resort, when a more preferred reference is too difficult to find. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If you're needing to use those websites, don't just check date D; check dates D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K.

And if you see someone else citing those websites, feel free to upgrade the source to a stronger one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't report what days of the week airlines fly specific routes. All that's necessary to report an airline–airports combo, is that the airline flies the route for at least part of the current year. Some routes are reported as "seasonal". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Airlines sometimes add one-off flights, such as for major events; should these be included in a destinations list, if the airline does not fly between A and B on a recurring basis? White 720 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I think those cases might better be described as air charter services? How would an airline set up infrastructure (gates, ticket counter, ground agents) for a one-off flight. More common is adding additional flights to an existing route, they'll do that for football fans traveling to road games. But this is a sidebar to the main point of contention. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't suggest that we list which days of the week are being flown. What I suggest is that if you are concerned that The existence of a flight from airport A to airport B by airline C on date D does not back up the assertion that flights on C exist from A to B on an ongoing basis, then one way to overcome this is to not limit your search solely to "date D". Instead, pick multiple semi-random dates across the next year, and check those. If there are flights "from airport A to airport B" on all of them, then either your random guesses are so impossibly lucky that it would be rational for you to buy some lottery tickets, or you can quit worrying about whether about whether flights are happening from A to B on an ongoing basis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Back to the behavioral dispute

I've spent considerable time cleaning up just one of the many airport articles that Danners430 has disrupted by arbitrary content removal: Rickenbacker International Airport § Airlines and destinations. The cargo section was particularly tricky to find sources for, but I managed to do it (ChatGPT helped). I'm generally in agreement with Vanguard10 (who announced their retirement 3 days ago) on this matter. The problem here is that it's fast and easy to tag something with {{citation needed}} and to randomly remove unsourced content, while it takes a lot of time and effort to find appropriate sources and add citations. I think in many cases one can do better (with effort) than falling back on booking engines as a last resort, but the most recent consensus, established nine years ago, is "searchable" websites are suitable references, albeit not ideal. OK, tag something with {{citation needed}}, if you must, but I'd prefer if you put in the effort to find and add the citation instead. This is a problem site wide, not just with airports. There is a severe imbalance of editors creating work for others to clean up, and not nearly enough editors doing the grunt work that the "executive editors" have requested and the inexperienced editors have, in good faith, created. Where I draw the line is with removal of true content, which results in Wikipedia at best, misleading readers, if not really flat-out lying to them. I hope a "boomerang" isn't needed, and we can move on with an agreement:

• Do not remove content because its reference is a "searchable" website. Tag with {{Better source needed}} if you must. Others would appreciate it if you at least try to find a better source first.
• Do not remove unsourced content without first confirming that it's false content. Selective removal of true content harms readers and the encyclopedia, as this is de facto replacement of true content with false content.

Doing either of the above two things is disruptive, because it forces editors who care to immediately respond to correct the problem, rather than deal with it in line with their personal priorities. wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but excuse me? You’re labelling edits which are explicitly within policy as disruptive, and adding a veiled threat of a boomerang for removing problematic content (unsourced content)? I respect you as a long-standing and senior administrator, but I feel you’re overstepping here. If you can point to where I have breached policy, I would accept a boomerang - but what you’re describing above are edits which are explicitly permitted under current en-wiki policy. If that policy needs to change, then so be it - we can go through the process of changing it, and I will abide by it.

I will continue removing unsourced content, as is explicitly permitted by WP:V as it stands. Unsourced content is problematic, and goes against what Wikipedia stands for.

I have already started a discussion at RSN regarding searchable content, as that is the venue to make a decision as to whether a source is classed as reliable or not. I haven’t removed any since coming to the realisation that I couldn’t locate the previous discussion, and have already stated I won’t do so unless agreed at RSN. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I seriously would suggest you strike your comment, in no way what Danners doing is disruptive. Heck WP:V is one of the five pillars. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 21:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Indeed: @Wbm1058:, the only potential boomerang here would be aimed at you. Describing editing within policy (our single most fundamental and important policy, in fact) as disruptive is the actually disruptive act, and can easily be considered to be a personal attack. You may prefer if you put in the effort to find and add the citation instead, but this is not required by policy. If you have issue with this, the correct solution is to start a RfC to change WP:V, not to accuse editors who don't edit the way you believe they should as being disruptive. Furthermore: Do not remove unsourced content without first confirming that it's false content. Selective removal of true content harms readers and the encyclopedia, as this is de facto replacement of true content with false content. This is absolutely erronious and a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. There is no such thing as "true content"; Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. Content that is not verifiable through an inline source cannot be assumed to not be "false content" itself, no matter how "true" it may actually be. And as for it forces editors who care to immediately respond to correct the problem, rather than deal with it in line with their personal priorities - No it does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

We are here to gather the sum of all human knowledge. What destinations and airlines connect various airports in my opinion belong here. And this appears to be the majority opinion. There are errors of commission and errors of omission. Removing something which is fact, even if not currently supported by a high quality ref, results in an error of omission. Rather than hand out fish, we should likely try to get clearer consensus all can agree to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus:

• Unsourced material can be WP:CHALLENGED.
• A CHALLENGE can include removing the material.
• But if you remove unsourced material, sometimes editors will be mad at you.

It looks to me like we've got all three of those elements in play here: Some material is unsourced; Danners430 removed some of it; now some people are mad at him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with that. It's not a good idea to behave repeatedly in a manner that makes others get mad at you, especially if you have thoughts of becoming an administrator on the project (or want to keep the tools you have). Leaving space for other participants in this discussion to sign on. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  And again with the veiled threats… or want to keep the tools you have. I hate to say this, but my respect for administrators abiding by policy is rapidly diminishing while reading this thread. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:00, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Good grief. I was thinking about myself, and how administrators should behave, not you, when I added that, for balance. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Understood and my apologies - I’ll strike the above. This whole thread is just wearing me out, which is one of the reasons I was enjoying my absence from it until a few days ago. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

What is included in an article is determined by reliable sources, it's the first sentence of WP:NPOV, not editors opinions. I'm all for including this type of information, but if no source shows that it's relevant my opinion doesn't matter.
As to unsourced information it can be challenged at anytime, and if it's removed as part of that challenge those wishing to include the information must include referencing per policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Good grief, again. You are just repeating boilerplate policy, for the umpteenth time. None of that is under contention, we all agree with that, but it doesn't address the point that's still under contention, the point that policy seems to not have considered. Yes, errors and omissions are an inherent part of the system, but is the policy really saying, "we don't care, at all, about them, go ahead and lie by omission, that's not a problem at all even if you intentionally do it?" – wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm repeating because it doesn't seem to have sunk in. If there are not sources to properly cover a subject don't include it, that's the answer and what policy says. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

You can argue that policy is wrong or incomplete, but you can't call other editors out for being wrong by following it. I you want to change policy you have to argue for that at the proper venue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:59, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The Level 3 heading of this section is Back to the behavioral dispute, but are there at least two behavioral disputes? There is a behavioral dispute upstream of here about sanctions against Vanguard10. This section appears to be about removal of unsourced content and is not about Vanguard10. Is this overall section becoming a multi-headed sea serpent, or a great monster with tentacles? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

In the "hope a "boomerang" isn't needed" spirit, perhaps this subsection can be closed without trying to figure out further behavioral disputes, especially as there is a second one on unsourced content below this one. CMD (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Lying by omission

Doc James is onto something here, I'm assuming from his familiarity with Medical errors § Definitions of diagnostic error. Sorry I was less diplomatic, and used stronger language, but Wikipedia has a definition for lying by omission. Errors and omissions excepted is a phrase used in an attempt to reduce legal liability for potentially incorrect or incomplete information supplied in a contractually related document such as a quotation or specification – or in an online encyclopedia anyone can edit? I guess this is covered by clicking on Disclaimers in the fine print at the bottom of every page readers read. I hope my insurance covers any errors and omissions I might inadvertently make, in the event the Foundation doesn't cover my back.

And you guys are telling me above that this is perfectly acceptable and in line with the WP:V policy? I don't see that policy addressing errors and omissions at all. That needs to be fixed. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

We are a perpetually incomplete encyclopaedia. Errors and omissions are a an inherent part of the system. No change to WP:V can alter that. CMD (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

So...

As far as I recall, there hasn't actually been a scheduled passenger flight/airport destination that (a) was actually happening and also (b) couldn't be verified in a source that editors would rely on to come to the conclusion that the flight was happening.

But if you're blanking uncited or (in your opinion) poorly cited information, then you do need to pay attention to the surrounding content. Compare:

• Rural County Airport has two destinations, Big City and seasonal flights to Beachtown. → Rural County Airport has two destinations, Big City.
• The destinations for Rural County Airport are: Big City and seasonal flights to Beachtown. → The destinations for Rural County Airport are: Big City.
• Rural County Airport has two destinations, Big City and seasonal flights to Beachtown. → Rural County Airport has a direct flight to Big City.

Some of the way these are worded state or imply a complete list, and it would be factually and non-neutrally wrong to present an incomplete list as if it were a complete list.

Of course, the best approach per the Wikipedia:Editing policy would be this:

• Rural County Airport has two destinations, Big City and seasonal flights to Beachtown. → Rural County Airport has two destinations, Big City and seasonal flights to Beachtown.

For most airports, finding the necessary sources to do this is not difficult; in fact, it's probably quicker and easier than having these disputes. As we say at WT:V, Wikipedia:Let the Wookiee win: if someone blanks uncited content, then revert it while adding the missing source.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Yup, you've got it. Except that the Wookiee was blanking uncited content at such a fast pace that the editors who might be inclined to let him win couldn't keep up the pace. It takes more time to find and add nice citations, so this strategy means letting the Wookiee win for weeks or months at a time. Check our E&O insurance coverage to make sure they're OK with that strategy. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the jokes about insurance and legal liability are helping people understand your point. During disputes, it's usually more effective to be very literal-minded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Edits like this are very much not what we do on an encyclopaedia. Something either is, or it isn't. Either way it can and should be sourced. Wishy washy marketing speak is very much not acceptable here. You have been here a very long time, with a lot of edits, how is it you don't know this? It feels like, with edits like that, you're being deliberately disruptive at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 19:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

When I made my reply to them earlier, it was only after I'd posted that I realised they were an admin. And was shocked that an admin who has been an admin since 2015 apparently doesn't understand WP:VNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. That edit was very much an outlier from the kind of edits I make. The airport's site itself is still promoting itself as a big cargo airport, so it felt weird to report on its loss of service by so many major cargo airlines. I don't know whether there's been much of any independent reporting about that. Anyhow, I'm done with this; it doesn't feel like further discussion will change anything; it is what it is. I'm kind of shocked too, that you guys still aren't hearing what Doc James, WhatamIdoing, and myself are saying. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:TRUSTMEBRO says, "Wikipedia only reports what the reliable sources say; it does not publish what its editors just believe is true." Aviation articles, and in particular the airlines and destinations tables in these articles, attract "trust me bro" sourcing, which is at best easily outdated, and at worst undermines trust in the encyclopedia more broadly. White 720 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

If it is supported by sources, even if they are sources some do not approve off, that is not "what its editors just believe is true". And no one is making the argument that content should be added without sources. That certain people may add certain types of content without references, is not a justification to exclude that type of content entirely even if sourced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:18, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Bludgeoning on Talk Linux

• Linux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Softwareperson1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:BLUDGEON

Raw numbers for the current current discussion on Talk:Linux:

• Softwareperson1000: 54 edits. (49%)
• Everyone else: 57 edits (51% - mostly replies to Softwareperson1000).
• Softwareperson1000: 14,786 words. (73%)
• Everyone else: 5,505 words. (27%)
• Duration of discussion: 145 days with zero signs of slowing down.

Key Quotes:

• "I suggest that you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• "Time to stop" --Yesterday, all my dreams... 19:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• "You need to drop the stick about whether Linux is an operating system/family and find somewhere else to edit. This is not a productive discussion." --Eyesinthefire 21:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• "This is clearly running in circles. @Softwareperson1000: what would it take for you to drop the stick on this? You clearly haven't been convincing anyone so far. If we were to stage an WP:RFC would you agree to respect the result and walk away, whatever the result might be?" MrOllie 16:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

(Softwareperson1000 posted multiple lengthy replies. Rather than selectively quoting them I advise going to the page, searching for MrOllie's comment above, and deciding for yourself whether Softwareperson1000 agreed to respect an RfC.)

• "I am asking you a simple question, and your failure to answer it is noted. It is apparent that an RFC would not get you to leave this issue alone." MrOllie 18:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• "It is clear that Softwareperson1000 is not going to stop unless someone takes them to WP:ANI for WP:BLUDGEONING. 32 comments so far, more than three time as many as the next two at 8 and 9." --Guy Macon 04:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• "You need to drop this. There is no consensus for your repeatedly goalpost-changing suggestions for removing content on Wikipedia describing Linux distributions as operating systems or families of operating systems." --Eyesinthefire 17:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• "I am still not convinced this counts as Wikipedia:BLUDGEONING. If you really do insist it should be considered bludgeoning what I am doing here, may I ask for specific quotations from that policy stating exactly what I am violating. My intention is not to violate the policy for the sake of it, I am simply not convinced I am in violation of the policy, I am open to the possibility of being proven wrong, but as far as I am concerned this is just a long discussion on the Talk page, and my understanding is that a long discussion is not forbidden in the policy." --Softwareperson1000 19:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC) (full context)
• "I think it's best to follow Talk:Linux#Time to stop here." --Aoidh 22:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Notes:

I counted all instances of "Softwareperson1000 (talk)" and just "(talk)", making sure each was a signature, then subtracted. Anyone not having "(talk)" in their signature wasn't counted.

I didn't include diffs because the nature of the conversation is such that you really should read the context. Just search for the quote. If someone insists I will go back and list the diffs.

This is only the discussion currently on Talk:Linux. Softwareperson1000 has had a lot to say in archived sections of talk:Linux and on other pages, but the one discussion is more than enough to make my case. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Double checking the above, found two unsigned Softwareperson1000 comments. So a couple of hundred or so more words. Not enough to re-run the numbers. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

In this post I will only comment on that part where you bring up the talk page archives of GNU variants. There was an edit war between me and User:Aoidh but that was already resolved and I consider it a case closed. There was never any edit war on the Linux article, bringing that up now seems bad faith to me. I see it as incredibly disingenuous to attempt a character assassination saying "but the one discussion is more than enough to make my case" as if to suggest some character flaw in my behavior to support your case. That would only convince anyone who does not bother investigating further into to the happenings at that article and the actual context and outcome of those discussions there. As far as having a lot to say in general in that GNU variants talk page, I have discussed a lot with User:Guy Harris there and it is important to realize this long discussion eventually resulted in us two editing the article peacefully together for one, but was also a generally useful and constructive discussion. I have also posted many ideas and proposals on what to do with the GNU variants article on its talk page and some similar on other GNU related articles also Talk pages, but you should also note that before I showed up here to edit the GNU variants article, it was in a sorry state indeed, compare the two below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_variants&oldid=1339744989

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_variants&oldid=1376352127

The discussions in the talk pages I consider a necessary part of improving the article, I therefore do not see how bringing up that talk page GNU variants contributes at all to your argument here about bludgeoning on the Linux talk page, in fact on the contrary as those discussions have been far more productive than not, even the edit war resolved and the article is better after it. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I repeat:

Raw numbers for the current current discussion on Talk:Linux:

• Softwareperson1000: 54 edits. (49%)
• Everyone else: 57 edits (51% - mostly replies to Softwareperson1000).
• Softwareperson1000: 14,786 words. (73%)
• Everyone else: 5,505 words. (27%)
• Duration of discussion: 145 days with zero signs of slowing down.

The fact that you consider unambiguous bludgeoning "a necessary part of improving the article" settled a question I asked below. Clearly you need a topic ban from computer operating systems and you need to be monitored and blocked if you repeat the behavior when editing other topics. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I don't consider "unambiguous bludgeoning" as necessary to anything. From the context I specified "I have also posted many ideas and proposals on what to do with the GNU variants article on its talk page and some similar on other GNU related articles also Talk pages" that the discussions there in those talk pages mostly GNU variants, were a specific example of useful, and necessary, discussions to be had to improve those articles as I had explained. The Linux bludgeoning issue specifically is a separate matter. I did not state that to be taken as a universal rule that the very specific discussion on the Linux talk page is the ideal one to be had everywhere as it took place there. I meant what I said that discussions are necessary in its most simplest possible sense, to state that the concept of having discussion in the talk pages is necessary as a general rule, it just happens, that in this very specific case, on the Linux talk page, that's how it turned out. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

We are well aware that you don't believe that you have been bludgeoning the process at all, much less unambiguously bludgeoning it. No need to repeat that opinion again and again. We all heard you the first time. WP:BLUDGEON says "If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions" 73% is far larger than 33%, so you have been unambiguously bludgeoning the process. Your reasons why you think that is OK have been noted. Please don't repeat them again. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't been following the discussion on the original article talk page at Talk:Linux , so I started by reading this discussion. What became clear to me is that User:Guy Macon is right that User:Softwareperson1000 is going on and on at excessive length. If Softwareperson1000 is trying to explain something or to persuade readers and editors of a viewpoint or conclusion, they are not doing that, because their posts are lengthy and tedious. I am still trying to understand the discussion in Talk:Linux and am relieved that Softwareperson1000 has now been partially blocked, and I thank User:BusterD, I know enough about operating systems and their species and genera and families and releases and mods to know that arguing about their taxonomy is seldom useful and seldom results in any improved knowledge about them. I don't yet know at this time what the right sanction, but the First law of holes is applicable, and the more they continue digging, the more severe the sanction is likely to be. User:Softwareperson1000 - You aren't advancing your case or any sort of case other than the case for sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Suggested Remedy

Proposed: Softwareperson1000 is topic banned from naming, classifying, or categorizing computer operating systems, broadly construed" --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2026 (UTC) (Proposal withdrawn. See below.) --15:57, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2026 (UTC) See new !vote below. --16:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  While doing some research to see if I want to support the alternative (topic ban on operating systems) mentioned below, I ran into this page with a very familiar behavior pattern: Talk:GNU variants. I am not sure that my proposed remedy would cover what is happening on that page, given Softwareperson1000's pattern of wikilawyering ("as far as I am concerned this is just a long discussion on the Talk page, and my understanding is that a long discussion is not forbidden in the policy.") Is there anyone here who would !vote for my version but wouldn't !vote for the "topic ban on operating systems" alternative? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban on operating systems, broadly construed: Softwareperson1000's response above, claiming that unambiguous bludgeoning is "a necessary part of improving the article", tells me that they will never voluntarily follow Wikipedia's disruptive editing and conduct policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support In the year 2026, we need to sanction users over the Linux/GNU/Linux naming dispute. --Xacaranda (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  LOL Softwareperson1000 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support as second choice. First choice is a topic ban from computer operating systems, broadly construed. Given the fixation on OSs and the bludgeoning on the smallest points, I have little confidence that they'll suddenly edit about other OS issues as prescribed by the canons. Being so specific leads to blurred lines and ban testing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I am fine with a topic ban on computer operating systems, but if it was my choice to make I would wait until after I see some problem edits in other OS related areas. I have a working theory that the core problem area is Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, not operating systems in general. I could be wrong. Maybe a N talk page comments per day limit in addition to my proposed remedy? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  After reading all of the other !votes, I now support a topic ban on operating systems, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I do have to commend you for trying to advocate for the gentlest effective topic ban. I didn't get quite there, but I'm always an appreciator of moderation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on operating systems. Find something else to edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on operating systems I reviewed a small part of Talk:Linux. Some issues raised by Softwareperson1000 (talk · contribs) are reasonable. For example, an argument can be made that Linux is just a kernel and that GNU deserves a lot more credit. However, that approach is a very long way from common usage and is not supported by the vast majority of reliable sources. In the spirit of today's LLM world, I asked Google "is linux an operating system or a kernel" (I only had to type the first three words). It answered "Technically, Linux is a kernel, but in everyday conversation, people use it to mean a complete operating system" (taken from Reddit). The merits of the argument are irrelevant—editors should not have to repeatedly explain the basics of how Wikipedia works. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Support topic ban from computer operating systems. Go find something else to edit. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support This has been going on for way to long. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Opposed

Let's assess bludgeoning, here are some of the big points I found relevant and my counter to them, presented below as a quotation and my reply to it in this context:

• "someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments" high is a word up for intepretation
• "such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own"

I just recently changed my mind on intention to edit the article when a valid counter was presented, I accepted new ideas proposed to me such as the idea that multiple families for a given OS can be had at once which I did not initially present as my argument. We resolved the Android issue which was one of my earlier big talking points.

• "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions."

Maybe? but most of the actual discussion was a linear stream of replies, only occasionally interrupted by me asking a new question or proposing an idea. More people did talk with me than there was enough of me to talk to others, in a sense, so maybe I repeated some arguments as others asked questions and sometimes I had to clarify things I said.

• Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building.

Well I think the context did require a long discussion, despite the personal views of some who insisted I do not speak. Note the presence of the active participants in the discussion still exchanging arguments until the present.

• Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view.

domination here is a very specific word, and the way I read that was to mean something close to spam. I think I was far from having any "domination" over the conversation and I was even recently quite embarrassed over the silly confusion about the sources that just got discussed very recently.

• "Everyone should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits.", in this one "reasonable limits" points to Wikipedia:CIVIL, and I don't believe I have violated it.
• "Do not badger editors to restate something just because you would have worded it differently" this was probably a mistake I made, I'll admit me pressing on User:Guy Harris to respond and reword that statement as specified there, was unnecessary and only contributed to bloating the discussion. Another one is when I asked questions about the GNU/kFreeBSD that were left unanswered, this was a source of infinite frustration for me as if I was talking to a brick wall. Fair enough this is the only point I will admit to, but I don't consider this enough to warrant a ban from the given topics.
• The section for "Dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process" if contents of which are used as an argument against me can be interpreted to mean I violated that policy, however it reads as a general guideline, which is definitively devoid of context.

Conclusion: you can fault me for having a bad habit of writing too long, maybe too much rambling perhaps. I suppose I have work to do to improve my writing to keep it more concise. However I don't consider this grounds to claim I violated a policy. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

And your reason for rejecting requests such as "Time to stop", "You need to drop the stick" and "This is clearly running in circles" was? And your reason for going on and on for 145 days after it became clear that nobody was going to agree with you was? And your reason for posting 14,786 words (73%) while everyone else combined posted 5,505 words (27%) was? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

For "Time to stop", "You need to drop the stick" and "This is clearly running in circles", I say I don't agree, on the grounds that 1. the discussion never warranted to be closed as a topic and, and note it is still live with good points being raised to this moment Talk:Linux#c-Chattenoir-20260924162000-Softwareperson1000-20260924153700, and 2. As I did just answer to what you are now asking about when I said "despite the personal views of some who insisted I do not speak." that's individual opinions of those who want the discussion to stop, do realize that none of the main editors involved in the discussion up to that point when those statements were made you now quoted, User:Aoidh, User:Guy Harris, and myself, ever wished for the discussion to seize. You, are the only one who was there up to that point, who made some meaningful amount of replies, which I again remind everyone you had rouble keeping the topic focused yourself, so I don't see why you are the one to speak as to when the discussion should stop, not meant as a personal attack, but the discussion was mainly the 3 of us I specified. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced you realize how much of the conversation on that page you're taking up if you think it falls withing "reasonable limits". Have you considered looking at those numbers again?

~2026-51579-65 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

"reasonable limits" does not address the duration of the conversation or the number of words used, the "limits" in this context, as I very specifically pointed out, pointing to the Wikipedia:CIVIL, means limits on the types of arguments that are allowed to be made. As in, the discussion is limited, by the policy which forbids certain forms of argumentation such as personal attacks. "Limit" is not a numerical maximum character length, you don't understand the policy you read. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, The uninvolved administrator who evaluates this report and gives you a topic ban will understand Wikipedia's policies just fine. As will the second uninvolved administrator who rejects your unblock request. That's why we elected them. The third uninvolved administrator who will later block you from editing Wikipedia entirely if you continue your behavior will also understand Wikipedia's policies.

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic on operating systems, broadly construed, though I am very involved here and that should be taken into consideration. My making two consecutive reverts of their recent additions at GNU variants (Special:Diff/1353676900 and Special:Diff/1353766181) was enough to warrant being persistently accused of vandalism and of pushing a personal agenda simply for that revert of their changes, something they still have not acknowledged is not vandalism under Wikipedia:Vandalism (though as above, they are quick to tell others you don't understand the policy you read as a way of dismissing their statements). Their dismissal of sources that do not match their viewpoint and persistent bludgeoning and assumption of bad faith is disruptive; accusing Guy Macon of bad faith above for showing that Softwareperson1000's behavior is a pattern and not isolated to one talk page is indicative of their confrontational method of engaging with others in this topic area. - Aoidh (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  The subject here is "Bludgeoning on Talk Linux", please keep your statements relevant to whether I was bludgeoning on the Linux Talk page or not. So I ask you since you didn't actually address it just now, do you think i was violating the policy on bludgeoning? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Your behavior as a whole is pertinent to the topic ban discussion and contextualizes why your behavior is disruptive in ways that is not limited to just bludgeoning. While you may not be personally satisfied with the answer (see WP:SATISFY) you are asking a question in response to a comment that already answers it. - Aoidh (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  You don't get to decide what is and is not relevant at ANI. We have administrators for that. It is longstanding ANI policy that all of an editor's edits may be scrutinized. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked from Talk:Linux for seven days while this discussion matures. This is a preventative measure only and not intended to signal any specific longterm outcome. BusterD (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• @BusterD: it looks like you blocked them rather than p-blocking them from that talk page, I'm assuming a p-block was intended? - Aoidh (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I did make that mistake. I've remedied my error and apologized in edit summary. My intention was NEVER to prevent the user from participating in this discussion, just in the talkspace under discussion. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe that Softwareperson has a point (that GNU/variant family overlaps with the GNU/linux family therefore the term Linux family cannot be a synonym for GNU/linux family), but that he is really bad at simplifying and focusing his thoughts.

I think if he agrees to keep his comments on this discussion to a character limit and avoids obfuscation of any sort, and focuses on discussing the sources he should be unbanned.

I think it might be a good idea to discuss the matter without him and see where everyone stands. Chattenoir (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Whether the GNU/variant family overlaps with the GNU/Linux family therefore the term Linux family cannot be a synonym for GNU/linux family is article content. ANI only deals with user behavior, not article content. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I had a brief look and it seems that the basic contention that the 'family' phrasing was too lax compared to the sources was fair. What struck me is that the article lead is still referenced to a 2009 study guide, which immediately seems like a mediocre source, and there's no references about the concept of family of operating systems in the article text, so the lead section isn't actually summarizing the article. It's clear that the talk discussion was not a productive endeavor and the new editor was rightly blocked for their failure to engage in an actual consensus-building discussion. This doesn't change the fact that we need to apply the relevant policies and guidelines much better in this article. People in opposition to Softwareperson1000 would be wise to produce improvements to the article now, otherwise it will look like the newbie was ultimately pushed away unfairly. --Joy (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Whether the 2009 study guide is a mediocre source is article content. ANI only deals with user behavior, not article content.

Whether there are references about the concept of family of operating systems in the article text is article content. ANI only deals with user behavior, not article content.

Whether the lead section summarizes the article is article content. ANI only deals with user behavior, not article content. -Guy Macon (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page, that 2009 study page also did not include what it was supposed to (the citation included a quote), the page cited was blank and I could not find the quote with Ctrl-F at all. I did provide an alternate source on the talk page however. Chattenoir (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Whether that citation in the article includes what it was supposed to is article content. ANI only deals with user behavior, not article content. -Guy Macon (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon you tried to hide and archive my comment above claiming ANI is about behavior, not content. If you actually read my comment, it is about behavior. And you've now just escalated the matter to be about your behavior with this rather rude attempt at shutting people up. Amazing. --Joy (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don't ping me. Whether the 2009 study guide used as a source in the article is a mediocre source is article content. ANI only deals with user behavior, not article content. Whether there are references about the concept of family of operating systems in the article text is article content. ANI only deals with user behavior, not article content. Whether the lead section summarizes the article is article content. ANI only deals with user behavior, not article content.

Please undo your revert. ANI only deals with user behavior, not article content. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

This reply of yours appears very agitated and frustrated. I'm sorry if I caused it to happen, but this level of lecturing is still very much inappropriate. It looks like you need to take a breather, and simply accept the fact that I reasonably disagree with your interpretation of how my comment discusses conduct. --Joy (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, the content of the article is relevant to the behavior around editing that same article, and it'd be very strange to ignore talking about content when this is about behavior around a dispute of that same content. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@User:Jishara

You would have to change multiple policies, guidelines, and explanatory essay to change the fact that ANI is for user conduct and not article content.

• WP:DRR/ANI tells you where to go for content disputes and for user conduct issues.
• WP:ANI says "This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems."
• WP:DR says "Issues of conduct can be addressed at the incidents noticeboard" and "The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the appropriate place to raise disputes relating to content. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum"

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. All evidence is that this editor who arrived 7 months ago, and seems to want to fix misunderstood issues with some F/OS software, has an agenda that is not focused on a collaborative encyclopedic project. The walls of text and rapid, verbose replies to any disagreement point strongly to a problem editor. I wonder if they will be more friendly with editors in topics where their opinions are less drastic. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 21:21, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm uninvolved and I've read this whole thread, the Talk:Linux discussion it grew out of, and the block log. I'm opposing the topic ban.

Start with the numbers, since they do most of the work here. WP:BLUDGEON says that if your comments take up one-third of the total text you are "likely bludgeoning". That sets a threshold of likelihood, not a definition of misconduct, and the same page says a long comment or replying multiple times is sometimes acceptable or needed for consensus building. A large share of the 14,786 words were direct answers to questions other people put to him. Answering questions on a talk page is participation. "The discussion ran 145 days" cuts both ways, too, because the other participants kept replying for those 145 days. A two-sided conversation that others could leave at any time is a strange thing to pin entirely on one participant.

On the remedy: BusterD already p-blocked him from Talk:Linux for a month last night. Worth noting that action started as a full sitewide block and got walked back within hours once someone checked it, which tells you something about how fast this thread is moving relative to how carefully it's being read. The immediate problem, if there was one, is stopped. A ban "from operating systems, broadly construed" applied to an account whose edits are mostly citation cleanup in that exact area functions as a site ban, and nothing in this thread shows disruption beyond this single discussion. The narrow remedy was withdrawn because it was phrased as ban-testing bait. If the narrow version was too cute and the broad version is a site ban in practice, the honest options are the p-block already in place, or a restriction with a defined scope.

On the substance: Chattenoir checked the lead citation, and the 2009 study guide does not contain the quoted material. Joy, who is nobody's idea of a supporter here, said the "family" phrasing was too lax against the sources and warned that if nobody fixes the article, it's going to look like a newcomer got pushed off a legitimate sourcing complaint for being verbose about it. That warning is two sections up and nobody has answered it.

So: oppose the TBAN as written. Support a comment-length restriction in the operating systems topic area plus a binding RfC on the Linux lead wording, with Softwareperson1000 committed to dropping the issue whatever the result. If he breaks that, a TBAN can be proposed and closed in an hour, and I won't be posting in its defense. The Kommodor Kid (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC) — The Kommodor Kid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"On the substance: Chattenoir checked the lead citation, and the 2009 study guide does not contain the quoted material."

This has now been remedied, an alternate version (although it was the same edition) of the text does include the quote, and we have added two additional sources to that lead sentence.

I do generally agree with you that the topic is worth discussing however, as I have said, I think the problem was largely Softwareperson1000s verbosity, and lack of focus on sources rather than technical arguments. Chattenoir (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

That's the problem when someone talks about "on the substance". "On the substance" is a codeword for "I will now talk about article content at ANI". What is worse is that the comment usually combines talking about article content with talking about user behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relax. I think you are being a bit rigid about this, if we need to discuss the article content to an extent in order to discuss Softwareperson1000's behaviour then we must.

But I think the thread here regarding the lead source is concluded anyway. Chattenoir (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

They're not being rigid in the slightest - your text they're responding to here is not relevant for this discussion. if we need to discuss the article content to an extent in order to discuss Softwareperson1000's behaviour then we must. - we do not need to, their behavior is easy to examine without bringing up article content. With Softwareperson2000 temporarily blocked from Talk:Linux, I would highly suggest you to open a new thread separate of their points there for folks to discuss the content. apologies - I missed that folks including you already had. In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

And the substantive part of that discussion was already been brought to the talk page. Chattenoir (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Checkuser needed feels weirdly like a duck and a joe job at the same time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't like to go to WP:SPI unless I have really solid evidence, but if someone else wants to do so I will participate. The Kommodor Kid showing up here and as their first post repeating several of Softwareperson1000's argument does seem suspicious. If a SPI is filed and the bludgeon it that would pass the duck test. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I'm not going to read the preceding wall of text in detail. Which accounts do you think are socks? Are you talking about The Kommodor Kid? I'm really not inclined to run a check on an account with a single edit; that would be deep into WP:CUFISHING territory. RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith, it seemed suspicious to me that a one-edit zero-day old account would find their way to ANI and repeat pretty much the same logic as the now-blocked editor under discussion, but you're the boss here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

OK, so I guess we're talking about Softwareperson1000? I didn't see that they were blocked because they're only partially blocked and that shows up as an essentially invisible dotted underline. In the future, the best way to handle these things is indeed to file an SPI because not only does that make it more clear who the involved parties are, but there's also lots of automation that kicks in which makes it easier to process. Since we're here, however, Softwareperson1000 appears to be Unrelated to The Kommodor Kid but there's lots of proxy use, so anything is possible. RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Checkuser is the best tool we have, but is far from perfect. Just looking at the computers and remote systems I can access from this chair, I could create three accounts (android Windows and BSD) and have Wikipedia see IP addresses (not proxies; servers I control) in California, Geneva, and Paris. I suspect that softwareperson has similar skills and resources. This means nothing. I could also use one of those logins to imitate softwareperson's writing style. See Joe Job. No proof either way means we assume good faith. We also have no proof either way that I am or am not the Zodiac Killer. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

That's the inherent problem with relying on CU proof for editors who appear to have the competency for technical evasion. Behavioral evidence is accepted at SPI, but occasionally gets set aside if CU doesn't match - and it's obviously difficult to confirm behavioral matches from a single edit. Personally, I'd recommend simply ignoring their input, as I don't think a personal opinion from an account with zero editing history should hold much weight in any case. It feels highly suspicious regardless of whether it's a DUCK or not. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 21:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I won't hesitate to suggest a block when K. Kid's popup reads "1 edits since: [today]", unless they have a very very very good story to explain how they landed here on account creation. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 15:18, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Support topic ban given above data around bludgeoning and WP:RGW with the repeated focus of arguing history of GNU and Linux and dismissing reliable sources describing Linux:

"Linux"_as_a_family_of_operating_systems - Chronologically the GNU project came first and operating systems that derive from it naturally ought to be categorized in terms of their historical lineage as such, derivatives of the GNU Project, therefore the GNU family of operating systems and I argue the historical lineage is what should be used to classify them under any families and umbrella terms. The historical lineage of the operating systems claimed to be a part of the Linux family of operating systems do not have their historical roots in the Linux kernel, therefore Linux has no claim for a family of operating systems

- given short list of (by my reckoning, reliable) sources that refer to Linux as a family of OS, completely ignored in favor of bludgeoning with various, mostly user-generated sources only talking about GNU. Later dismisses sources out of hand with no explanation fortunately, they are not reliable sources, so we can dismiss them.

Arguing that based on the historical context, otherwise reliable sources that refer to Linux as an operating system or family of operating systems are inherently unreliable

In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. Whatever a person's position on the content dispute (we are not going to decide or even discuss whether any page should use Linux or GNU/Linux or whether "Unix-like family" is a real thing here), ignoring what reliable sources say in favor of your own reasoning after having our actual policy on sourcing explained repeatedly is a severe behavior problem. Not bowing to consensus when literally everyone else opposes you is a severe behavior problem. Insisting (once again based on your own reasoning) that you didn't bludgeon and that the clear wording of WP:BLUDGEONING doesn't apply to you -- once again ignoring the fact that everyone else in the discussion except a single one-post-wonder says that you have been bludgeoning -- is a severe behavior problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

To clarify given we're now talking different remedies. I support any of the topic bans brought up, with a preference towards a topic ban on operating systems, broadly construed. Based on what this editor has said, I'm concerned the WP:RGW will continue in other GNU-y spaces. In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all restrictions, a warning will be sufficient. If user continues, then a short topic ban should be warranted.

Gigman (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Anyone evaluating this might want to look at the last few posts at Talk:Linux#Restart: is there anything we want to do with the Linux page?. What I am seeing is that, with Softwareperson1000 no longer able to dominate the discussion, a bunch of good-faith editors are working together to puzzle out what conflicting sources say and how best to follow those sources.

There is also yet another one post wonder who supports Softwareperson1000 using a writing style much like that of Softwareperson1000, and once again one post isn't actual proof of anything. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that the disruption has stopped now that the subject is blocked from Talk:Linux, so maybe leaving them blocked there is sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Topic ban from Linux and Talk:Linux. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - This thread was about to be archived, and can now stay here for a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for Close

• Request for Close All that can be said here has been said. I will make no comment given the triviality of the issue. Time for an admin to make a decision and end this waste of time merry goround. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support Close

Raw count:

• Topic ban from operating systems: 7
• Topic ban from naming, classifying, or categorizing computer operating systems: 2
• Topic ban (did not specify which one): 2
• Unblock immediately, then do nothing: 2 (one from Softwareperson1000, one from a one-post-wonder).
• Existing one month block, then warning: 1
• Site ban: 0 (raw count has changed since this was posted)

-Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Temporarily removing my support for a close while we discuss Robert McClenon's proposed remedy. See section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

A New Proposed Remedy

• Overview

In this edit Robert McClenon proposes a different remedy.

The existing temporary remedy to prevent further disruption while we discuss this issue is a one month page block from Talk:Linux which expires in three weeks. Please note that temporary remedies are imposed at a time when the discussion is ongoing and do not reflect any consensus regarding what the final remedy should be.

Robert's new proposal is "Topic ban from Linux and Talk:Linux", We don't normally topic ban someone from a page. We page block them, and (unlike a topic ban) the software enforces the block. Robert, could you clarify whether you are talking about the Linux page or the topic of Linux?

Also note that a topic ban from operating systems includes a topic ban from Linux (the topic, not just the page) and also includes a topic ban from naming, classifying, or categorizing computer operating systems.

Finally, I should note that late-arriving remedies like this seldom gain consensus, but that participants really should examine the new proposal. Sometimes someone comes up with a great idea late in the game that everyone then gets behind.

None of the above is disputed or controversial. I will express my support or opposition to the new proposal in a separate comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any remedy that involves only the Linux page. Continue to support a topic ban from operating systems, broadly construed.

I don't think that the "no disruption since the temporary remedy" argument is sound. It often happens that an editor does nothing wrong during an ongoing ANI case. We even have an essay about it: WP:ANIFLU.

In my original report, I only offered up evidence of bludgeoning on Talk:Linux because that was more that sufficient to make my case, and because I knew that Softwareperson1000 believed that what they were doing was not bludgeoning and thus was likely to bludgeon at ANI. I could have posted evidence of bludgeoning at Talk:GNU variants and Talk:GNU but I didn't think it was needed. I think that if we only topic ban from Linux Softwareperson1000 will continue bludgeoning Linux-adjacent pages.

Also, Softwareperson1000 made identical edits to the following pages in what I am convinced is an attempt to remove the word "Linux" wherever possible because It Should Always Be Called GNU/Linux: GeckoLinux, OpenMandriva Lx, Zenwalk, Peppermint OS, Canaima (operating system), AntiX, MX Linux, Bodhi Linux, Manjaro, Pop! OS, PCLinuxOS, Uruk GNU/Linux, Devuan, Zorin OS.

I am NOT going to discuss whether those were good edits (ANI is for discussing user behavior, not article content) but does anyone here think that a BRD revert of any of those edits won't result in further bludgeoning?

We need to topic ban Softwareperson1000 from the topic where they have such strong feelings that they cannot follow Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, not just the one example page I gave when reporting this. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Although the Linux talk page is the locus, the disruption isn't limited to that article but involves Softwareperson1000 trying to impose their interpretation on all related articles. So such a limited topic ban would not be helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Guy Macon -I have requested an administrator to close this discussion at Requests for Closure. In my opinion, but I am not an administrator and am not uninvolved, there is a consensus to topic-ban the user from the topic of operating systems, but we needed to make a formal closure request at Requests for Closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Lazarbeem's CT issues continue after avoiding sanctions

Lazarbeem (talk · contribs) continues to violate policies regularly within WP:RUSUKR after their latest ANI report from 27 June 2026 was archived without a close, as before, their WP:NPOV violations mostly concern Ukrainian military controversies or casualties, for example creating a "foreign volunteers" section on the Armed Forces of Ukraine and making around 90% of the section be about statements by two individuals focusing solely on Colombians being treated as "cannon fodder" and discriminated against. The WP:DUE violation here probably doesn't need much clarification, given that this was inserted into an article meant to be about the entire military of Ukraine.

Since this has been going on since around the middle of last year and the policies of WP:NPOV have been pointed out to Lazarbeem more times than I can count, on top of them struggling with other aspects, I thought a WP:CIR scenario was quite possible, but they are apparently competent enough to grasp the basis of policies like WP:DUE as they are now attempting to remove content concerning the Russian military's use of "human wave" tactics citing due weight concerns. This hypocrisy was pointed out on their own talk page, where they seem to think that if they simply ignore their WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior being pointed out instead of actually addressing it, they can carry on as normal.

This is the fourth time this user finds themselves at ANI in less than a year, it's a time sink at this point and I believe they have demonstrated time and time again they can not be trusted to edit WP:RUSUKR, where they have proven themselves chronically prone to violating WP:NPOV to fixate on specific aspects they evidently wish to promote. TylerBurden (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

This issue is broader than just WP:RUSUKR a similar pattern of WP:IDHT and WP:TENDENTIOUS led to this thread: and this prior AN/I filing they also have a tendency to create pages about small groups that fly under the radar and that have serious neutrality problems . I think it's likely that these problems are going to continue until there is an intervention of some sort. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Tyler, you removed content from the article 3rd International Infantry Battalion without reading the article from Ukrainska Pravda dated February 2026 (linked here ->Ukraine's international legions integrated into assault units | Ukrainska Pravda) which states that the former 2nd International Legion (Ukraine) had been transferred 253rd Assault Regiment Arei. You also completely ignored the sources from MilitaryLand.net (linked here -> 253rd Assault Regiment | MilitaryLand.net and here -> Viribus Unitis: 2nd International Legion Reassigned to Assault Forces | MilitaryLand.net) which also state that the 2nd International Legion was transferred to the 253rd Assault Regiment. Despite claiming syth, sources from both MilitaryLand.net and Ukrainska Pravda stated this and you ingnored them. Lazarbeem (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, while you claimed that no source mentions the 3rd International Infantry Battalion, the article from militaryland.net dated March 2026 explicitly states that "Structurally, the battalion remains as an infantry formation within the regiment. It is formally designated as the 3rd Infantry Battalion, but informally known as the International Legion Infantry Battalion as part of the regiment. The battalion will be responsible for securing newly captured ground and maintaining control of the line, whereas assault units are responsible for storming and advancing on enemy positions." (link -> Viribus Unitis: 2nd International Legion Reassigned to Assault Forces | MilitaryLand.net) Two separate sources that are cited within the article describe the 3rd International Infantry Battalion as a assault unit responsible for storming enemy positions and holding newly captured ground yet you removed this from the article with no justification other than claiming syth Lazarbeem (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Lazarbeem So let's get this straight, instead of addressing any of the actual issues here you are instead going to complain about being reverted because you can't cite content (as it happens in the same WP:CT) properly? I guess we will see how that works for you, I was hoping you might at least attempt to address the issues (which apparently extend to outside RUSUKR as well) here but it seems like you are going with the same just pretend it doesn't exist approach. TylerBurden (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This does address the issue of you not reading sources. I showed you where each topic mention was within two different sources but you ignored them. On the topic of the discussion on the Human wave attack talk page, I (as well as multiple other users) simply criticized David Axe's comparison to Banzai charges. I provided two sources which specifically state that a banzai charge is an infantry attack and compared that to Axe's comparison which includes the use of IFVs. Your response to this was "And you're free to be critical of whatever you want, you're not allowed to remove Wikipedia content because you personally disagree with it." I did not remove any content on that article, I stated that the reason that comparison should be removed is because of Axe's comparison not matching what a Banzai Charge actually is. Furthermore, you did not even bother to read the sources which describe banzai charges as a infantry attack. As for the foreign volunteers section of the Armed Forces of Ukraine article, I included:

-Number of foreign volunteers serving in the AFU as of August 2026

-Percentage from Latin America

-Claims of Colombians being mistreated

-The main units which foreign volunteers serve in

-The fact that many have been awarded for bravery in combat

I have no idea how that could be WP:UNDUE. Lazarbeem (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've had to do cleanup on a page created by you @Lazarbeem with major sourcing issues. Considering how often I've addressed sourcing with you I'm at the point of assuming WP:IDHT applies but in this most recent case there are actually WP:BLPCRIME violations as you were accusing this organization of committing crimes for which they had not even been charged, let alone convicted, in wikivoice. It seems like major sourcing problems is also the key theme of the WP:RUSUKR edits. I don't know how to get through to you that you need to ensure you are using reliable sources (not Joe Warmington editorials in a notoriously bad tabloid), avoiding WP:SYNTH and paying attention to WP:DUE. My good-faith interpretation is that you need to be pointed to WP:CIR. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia say that certain authors cannot be cited? The deprecated sources list only lists news outlets. Furthermore if Nomos-TV is an unreliable source then why isn't it on the deprecated sources list? Lazarbeem (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Nomos-TV is a new media outlet maintained by a minor political extremist in Quebec. It has flown under the radar here on WP because basically nobody knows about it. However Joe Warmington is a notorious writer of editorials for the Toronto Sun and, per WP:RS editorials are only reliable for the opinion of the author. You cannot use them for statements of fact. I have explained this to you before. Multiple times. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Is there currently a discussion on if Nomos-TV should or should not be cited? I ask because per WP:USEBYOTHERS, I need to give both sides of a topic if possible. I did that for a journalistic case in regards to claims within the 225th Regiment. For that case I gave both the report by journalist Anna Kaliuzhna and the response given by unit commander Oleh Shyriaiev in order to show both sides of the case getting their say Lazarbeem (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

In regards to Nomos-TV, if it is unreliable it should be listed as such or put on a "not recommended for X topic list" similarly to Fox News Lazarbeem (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Most unreliable sources are not listed at WP:RS/P nor are they blacklisted or deprecated. Blacklisting and deprecation is not recommended to handle most unreliable sources. You cannot use the absence of a source from these lists as proof of reliability. And WP:FALSEBALANCE is a thing. Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes but WP:FALSEBALANCE mainly applies to conspiracy theories. Also how am I supposed to know if a source is unreliable if there's no list deeming it as such? There are thousands if not millions of sources in the world and no way to memorize how each of them shift between reliable and unreliable Lazarbeem (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

You're supposed to use your good judgment and evaluate whether something is a RS. This may not be perfect but you especially should be able to tell in clear cut cases. If you lack any ability to tell whether something is an RS without someone telling you this is very troubling after all this time. And at the very least means you need to stay well away from CTOP areas and especially those where ECR applies. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I can tell the difference between certain sources but sometimes I am informed that a certain source is unreliable despite not being on the depreciated sources list or some similar list. I believe that Wikipedia should have a list where it is explicitly stated that certain sources should not be cited for certain topics and where they can and cannot be cited similar to how Fox News can't be cited for certain topics Lazarbeem (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again the vast majority of "sources" will never been on a list since because there are so many websites out there which someone could say is a source. Editors need to be able to use their judgment to assess sources themselves, that's after all how the lists developed. RSPS itself has existed for only about 8 years compared to the 26 years or so that Wikipedia has existed.

For an experienced editor, these lists are mostly helpful for borderline cases or for trying to avoid arguments with uninformed new editors. Experienced editors should not need them for clear cut cases and any experienced editor who does seems to lack the competence to edit Wikipedia so probably needs to reconsider whether they should continue to edit and at the very least needs to stay well away from CTOP and especially ECR cases.

I barely understand French but just a very quick check of the current front page of is enough to see major red flags e.g. "250 000 filles violées par des gangs Pakis avec la complicité des médias et de la police" is the top story which you don't need much understanding of French to tell is a major red flag. And then you see the image for "Alliance nord-américaine ou euro-atlantique ?" which includes someone who seems intended to be a Sikh wearing a Canadian flag outfit, Trump as an overweight perhaps feminine caricature with an American flag onesie or swimming costume & a female with an EU burka. To top it off another article is "Natalité : Faire des bébés blancs" which again you don't need much French to guess what it means and sure enough Google Translate says it's "Birth Rate: Having White Babies".

Most of these seem to be opinion pieces but most of their content seems to be opinion pieces. And in any case if a site is regularly publishing such opinions pieces, no editor should need a list to tell them it's very unlikely to be an RS. Frankly this case is so extreme that we can drop the experienced bit. Anyone with even a basic understanding of RS should know this site has so many red flags that at a minimum they should check at RSN before using it. And any editor who is familiar with RS and failed to do so needs to question if they're suited to edit wikipedia since they seem to lack the basic judgment skills any editor here needs. Just to repeat for one final time, no editor should expect they can rely on lists to tell them if sources are RS.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Just to add remember RSPS is for "Perennial sources", sources who's reliability have frequently come up. There is obviously no way that millions of sources are going to be perennially discussed due to some combination of them being obscure so editors aren't even considering using them but also because they are so obviously not RS that editors recognise straight away they are not RS and do not need discussion to establish that. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

But shouldn't there be a way to list or categorize at least some of them so that editors can have some form of knowledge? Lazarbeem (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

That's.. literally what RSP is? TylerBurden (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes that's what I was referring to with Fox News. I was told that Nomos-TV is an under a similar thing despite it not being on either list. If there is a problem with Nomos-TV then it should be added to one of those lists so that it isn't cited in the future Lazarbeem (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, that's not the problem here, there is a process for that which isn't ANI. The point is that your inability to evaluate sources is yet another problem on top of all the rest. TylerBurden (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

But what if I determine a source to be good and another user deems it to be bad because it doesn't agree with their politics? For example, I cite a source that leans left but a right wing editor doesn't like it and tells me that it's unreliable despite not appearing on any of Wikipedia's sources lists? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If there's a disagreement over the reliability of a source, you can bring it up for discussion at WP:RSN to get input from the community. Schazjmd (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, I just added a topic for Nomos-TV. If I see any more sources that I am unsure of and that are not on any pre-existing lists, I'll ask about them there Lazarbeem (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Also looking up Joe Warmington's name shows that many articles cite his editorials seemingly without issue Lazarbeem (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:OSE simply means there's cleanup work to be done elsewhere. Please, I implore you, read WP:NEWSORG. You cannot use editorials for statements of fact. Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Can I use them as weight? Lazarbeem (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

No. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok noted Lazarbeem (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Also if that's the case then should I remove any Joe Warmington editorials if they are cited alone? Lazarbeem (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes except in the vanishingly small set of circumstances where the citation is explicitly to Warmington's opinion and where Warmington's opinion is WP:DUE inclusion. This will be almost never as he has no particular expertise other than writing inflammatory editorials. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

But on the topic of that clean up, how come CBC News sources were completely removed? Lazarbeem (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Basically because you were using it to state a conjecture from a non-participant in an event as if they witnessed the event. IE: WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Why was Cora Le Moyne criticism of violence removed? Lazarbeem (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

ask this because the incident she criticized is still mentioned in the article

Lazarbeem (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

She is a random non-notable person who was not present for the incident. This sort of man-on-the-street commentary is non-encyclopedic. I really think you should step away from political articles, in general. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Per the article by CBC news she was present at the protest but not at the incident of the man being attacked. I can link it here if needed Lazarbeem (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

You didn't cite anything related to aspects of the protest she attended but rather her personal opinion on a photograph she was shown of a violent incident she did not witness.

If a journalist came up to me and said "your friends did that, doesn't that make you feel bad," while showing me, without context, a picture of a guy who got beat up, I might say "gee that's messed up," but that doesn't make "gee that's messed up" an encyclopedically relevant statement.

She wasn't there for the violent incident and, per your source, her knowledge of it was after the fact and mediated by a journalist talking to her. She's literally just a random person in Montreal. In what world would you think that's WP:DUE except in the one where you are trying, deliberately, to find evidence of antifascists being violent to put into an article about them? Simonm223 (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

No you didn't, adding some awards to the section after you were made aware of violating WP:DUE does not absolve you of creating the section the way you did in the first place. I'll put it right here so that you can tell everyone how neutral it was.

"According to Military Ombudsman Olha Reshetylova as of August 2026, there are around 16,000 foreign volunteers from at least 72 countries serving in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, nearly 40% of which are from Latin American countries. Mario Iván Urueña Sánchez, an international law professor at Rosario University noted that Colombian fighters are often deployed on high-risk missions without proper integration, protection, or support, leading to a "staggering death rate". Sánchez also said that, "there is a lot of discrimination, a lot of mistreatment" against Colombian volunteers. In an interview with Infobae, Marlon Gómez Torres, a 26-year-old volunteer from Cúcuta, Colombia, claimed that Latino volunteers were being used as cannon fodder."

This is how you left the section, it wasn't changed until I got involved, all you did was throw some awards in long after the due weight violation was pointed out, quite possibly just to try to save face. In what universe the above a WP:DUE summary of foreign volunteers in the Ukrainian military? TylerBurden (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Wait you accused me of adding more stuff "quite possibly just to try to save face" before changing it (I thank you for that if it's because you wanted to act in good faith). The reason as to why I left it is because I forgot to come back to it until you reminded me. On the not of sections in regards to foreigners in the war, the article for the Russian Armed Forces has a foreign personnel section that mainly mentions negative things. It also mentions foreign volunteers in the Russian Armed Forces being used expendably without issue while the comment from a Colombian volunteer saying something similar about the Ukrainian Armed Forces is UNDUE. I bring this up because if one belligerent needs positive coverage for it's article and the other doesn't then where does WP:DUE and UNDUE apply? For every negative does there have to be a positive or do we add a summary every major story in relation without worrying about negatives and positives? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Also where do I come in? Should I remove stuff from that section of the Russian Armed Forces article claiming that it's UNDUE, try and find something positive to add to balance coverage, or just leave it alone (which is what I chose to do) due to the fact that all of the sources in that section of the article seem to be reliable sources and well cited? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If your excuse is you "forgot", you are evidently unable to uphold the higher WP:CTOP standard. You are still asking basic WP:DUE questions after almost two years of constantly editing contentious topics, at this point you just need to be removed from them. TylerBurden (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I think we also need to note the POV pushing of it all. The sourcing issues in TylerBurden's initial complaint all skewed in a specific (Pro-Russian) direction. Likewise the neutrality issues I've been trying to get Lazarbeem to curtail since February include two key themes: non-neutral edits critical of various antifascist groups and topics and non-neutral edits thathave the effect of emphasizing the profile and significance of white nationalist groups in Canada. Lazarbeem seems to struggle with the idea that a far-right new media site with some remarkably racist headlines (seriously? Natalité : Faire des bébés blancs?) is unreliable on Wikipedia as demonstrated by this response to this thread . I said before that Lazarbeem should stay out of political topics and I would like to propose a topic ban: Lazarbeem to be banned from editing pages to do with modern politics broadly construed. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223, can you please clarify your meaning of "modern"? Do you mean post the Peace of Westphalia? I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean. TarnishedPath^talk 11:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

How about Post-WWII politics as a clarification? Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Support. That they thought to take that to RSN speaks for itself. TarnishedPath^talk 12:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN on various modern contentious topics, in particular WP:RUSUKR as brought up by complaint, I've seen many instances that appear to be bad faith edits then over-involved back and forth arguing to cover, but never addressing core issue. Lacanic (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I got a question:

1. Is the ban permanent?
2. How does "Modern politics" shift in the span of time? For example, in 19 years WW2 would have been 100 years ago.
3. What if I edit an article about a modern military unit (like the ones Canada recently formed). Does that fall under Post-WWII politics or is it up to editor interpretation?

Lazarbeem (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Further clarification: I am proposing an indefinite topic ban so the onus would be upon you to demonstrate to the community that you had developed the skills necessary to handle this topic before you could edit in that topic again in the future. Furthermore, while your citation of Nomos-TV is a recent example of the problem with your editing it is far from the whole of the problem. After all, this thread started because of non-neutral editing in the Russia / Ukraine war contentious topic. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

So basically I have to improve my editing and citation skills on anything before post-WW2 politics before I move on to after post-WW2 politics? Also what's the year cut off for this ban and do military topics such as units apply? Lazarbeem (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Considering the WP:RUSUKR issues my proposal is certainly intended to include military topics which are effectively a subset of political topics. And the year cutoff is anything after WWII. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

So if an article mentions that unit participated in both WW2 and the Korean War can I or can I not edit it? Lazarbeem (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I ask this because I know one thing I'm very good at is creating infoboxes, especially for military units. If the full cut off is dated to September 2, 1945 I plan to do create high quality infoboxes for any articles about any military unit that is missing an infobox. Provided that it is before the cut off date. Lazarbeem (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I only cited Nomos-TV once on one article. My edit history can prove that Lazarbeem (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If I'm not allowed to ask questions on specific instances how am I supposed to be certain? Especially on a large section such as that one Lazarbeem (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Yet again missing the point, somehow. No one said you aren't allowed to ask questions, it's the fact that you still after such a long time either simply don't have the capability to grasp the fundamentals of reliable sources or due weight, or you willingly just try your luck in order to push your tendentious (pro-russian, apparently pro far-right) narratives. Needless to say I am in full support of anything stopping this disruption, be it a topic ban (modern politics including wars) or a damn indef at this point with the amount of WP:IDHT going on. Enough wasting everybody's time. TylerBurden (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If criticizing a single comparison made by David Axe is pro-Russia then every other editor who also criticized that comparison on the talk page is also apparently pro-Russia. That is illogical and doesn't make sense Lazarbeem (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If I'm pro-Russia why when I created the Conscription of disabled people during the Russo-Ukrainian war article did I mention that Russia has conscripted disabled people? Why did I add the section about issued being addressed to penal units on the Ukrainian penal military units during the Russian invasion of Ukraine article? Furthermore if I'm pro far-right why did I mention that there are people who disagree with several far right movement and protested a far-right conference? These are just a few examples. Please stop making accusations that do not apply here. If you have an issue that I tried to cover multiple sides on certain issues then just say it Lazarbeem (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounded aggressive. I just don't want to be accused of being something that I'm not, especially on an admin board Lazarbeem (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You can't pick out two edits from almost two years of editing this topic where you have consistently violated Wikipedia policies to make pro-Russian edits and say "look I did this, I'm neutral", currently topic banned editors pushing the same POV have tried arguing the same thing and it's not fooling anybody, because there is literally a whole trail behind you of violating policies like WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH to present negative narratives about Ukraine over this period. Even your whole "present both sides" schtick you now try to present yourself as following fails to understand how WP:DUE works. You seem to be under the impression that if something "bad" is written about X, something "bad" needs to be written about Y, which as you really should know by now is not how it works. Even if against all odds this doesn't stem from WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior, the rest of the issues are still there and you are in just as much in need of at least a topic ban since you don't appear to be capable of editing these topics in line with policy. TylerBurden (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

If I picked out more edits it would have been longer. I know I've made mistakes but that doesn't give you the right the label me as things that I am not. Lazarbeem (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Cool, since I'm not the only one noticing this, let's see what the administrators say, you can keep denying or outright ignoring all the patterns all you want. TylerBurden (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you're the only one name calling. You are the only one here who called me both pro-Russia and far-right Lazarbeem (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

He is not the only one saying that - You seem to have vested interest in pushing contentious things such as creation of this page on Ukrainian penal military units during the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Conscription of disabled people during the Russo-Ukrainian war where your edits were reverted, or the campaign to rewrite history regarding Russia's documented "meat wave" tactics on Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and [Meat Wave Talk] page to "sensationalist media myth in "Russian invasion of Ukraine".

One would think after this handful of ANI / talk page discussions you'd learn or adapt, but continue this behavior. Lacanic (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

A user known as ~2026-45482-86 was the one who created that topic on the talk page in early September 2026. Me and Betelgeuse X had a discussion and came to the conclusion that if a definition matches then it should be kept in regards to human wave attacks. Afterwards I commented how I disagreed with David Axe's banzai charge comparison being made due to his example used. Lazarbeem (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

As for the Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article, my last edit there was in June 2026 where I made a copy edit from the German Corpse Factory about a Newsweek article talking about the mobik meat cubes story. (article here ->Fact Check: Were Dead Russian Soldiers Packed Into Grisly ‘Meat Cubes’? - Newsweek). Afterwards, a user by the name of LordCollaboration said that "Not being true is not the same as disinformation" and we left it at that Lazarbeem (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

As for why I created the articles Ukrainian penal military units during the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Conscription of disabled people during the Russo-Ukrainian war, it was because no where on Wikipedia had covered them in depth and I felt that they were long enough to warrant having their own dedicated articles. Lazarbeem (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The number of responses from Lazarbeem in this thread adequately demonstrate how disruption like Lazarbeem's ends up wasting editor time. And that's not even touching on the time spent by @Morwen: over the massive copyvio issues at the Pigeon Hill Raid article Lazarbeem once tried to create and the copyvio issues with the Battle of Hobdy Bridge article or the copyvio issues with the Battle of Chail-li page and I've touched on their comportment on articles about antifascists but this gives an example of the time wasted dealing with their edits . Lazarbeem always has an excuse and then finds some novel way to make a mess other editors have to clean up. And they always say they'll do better next time. And then they do it again. Over and over. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

This, an administrator just needs to take action, their responses here have only demonstrated even more issues than I initially described in this report. The only question at this point is how much more of others time they'll be allowed to waste. TylerBurden (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

~2026-41404-95

~2026-41404-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding aggregate scores to the critical reception section of album articles from the website Album of the Year, which is listed as an unreliable source at WP:ALBUMAVOID. This can be seen with these recent edits:, however they have also been doing the same thing as far back as July when I explained to them on my talk page that Album of the Year is an unreliable source and shouldn't be used. I also left a message on their talk page recently explaining that they should not be adding Album of the Year aggregate scores to articles, after which they removed my message, and refused to engage in discussion, and also reverted the edit I made on the article where I removed the Album of the Year aggregate score.

I have already reported this TA on ANI twice due to issues with the way they have formatted citations in articles and included unreliable sources or added unnecessary sources. They seemed to have made an effort to improve their editing style in response to these reports, however more recently its evident they have gone back to doing things in a disruptive manner again. This is all despite being blocked from editing for 1 week in August in response to one of my reports against them, which was for battleground behaviour they displayed in response to the report. It is highly frustrating for me to work alongside this TA in editing album articles, which they edit many of, when they consistently contribute what I believe are disruptive edits and refuse to listen when I try to explain Wikipedia editing policies to them in favor of doing things their own way. Zirthes (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Album of the Year is not an unreliable source when sticking to the critic score. If you believe that it is, you're more than welcome to join in on this discussion and rescue it from the archive.

If you want to see actual examples of disruptive behaviour, here are some examples:

• Derailing a merge proposal with an unrelated rant about the nominated article's title, simply because the nominated article was created by me.
• Adding back paragraphs of entirely unsourced, LLM-generated slop to an article, simply because I was the user who removed it.
• Jumping in to defend plagiarism and copyright violation on Wikipedia, simply because I was the one to report a user for doing it.

This editor, Zirthes, has been Wikihounding me with absurd regularity since late July 2026. Here's them admitting to it. The three examples I just listed above are a tiny drop in the bucket, but some of the most severe and egregious. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Noting I've made a subsection below for the Tu quoque accusations. I think it would be useful for this portion to focus only on the article-related bits.

For the purposes of this portion of the report, I'll note that A) the WikiProject Albums thread you linked and implied that it OK'd the use of Album of the Year appears to do the opposite: I count two editors, including you, who suggest it can be used, two that suggest it should not be used, and one who says it's worth having the discussion. (Also, a couple that don't seem to get that TAs are operated by people that exist and may have been editing before their current TA was created. TAs can have experience from before their current TA.) That's hardly a consensus, and as there is no consensus to overturn the previous one which had a clear consensus that it's unreliable, that previous consensus stands.

It's okay to disagree with the result of a discussion and its consensus. It's not okay to disregard it. Would you be willing to stop using Album of the Year until and unless a new consensus at WP:RSN emerges that it may be used? EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll also note that per WP:LOCALCON, a consensus at a Wikiproject (if one existed) could not override a wider community consensus, such as at WP:RSN. So there's another reason why using the disputed source should not be done. Could you commit to not using that source? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Decisions are not based on votes. Decisions are based on rational discussion. No rational discussion determined that Album of the Year is unreliable. One person in a 2020 thread came barrelling in, made objectively false claims about the site that immediately tainted the discussion, and a bunch of people "voted" based on "all of the above". As I pointed out in the thread linked above, it is only rational to "disallow" Album of the Year as unreliable if we also disallow basically every other notable aggregator (including Any Decent Music, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes), because the reasons that the people in the 2020 thread came up with also apply to basically every other aggregator. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Consider #1 in the don't column of WP:CONDD. If your defense is "the consensus was wrong" then I believe you need to be blocked indefinitely until it is clear that you will abide by consenses, even if you disagree. If you think the consensus is wrong, change it first. There are WP:NODEADLINES here; take the time and do it right instead of editing against a consensus. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If your defense is "the consensus was wrong"

Not what I said. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Then I guess I don't see any dispute that you knowingly edited against the consensus established at RSN. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Then you have a flawed idea of what "consensus" means on Wikipedia. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Let's see if other editors agree with you that there was no consensus here at RSN that the source is unreliable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not sure if you think posting the link is some kind of gotcha, considering I've already referenced the thread in this very chain of comments. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The October 2020 discussion seems clear and it is not reliable. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 04:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

In that discussion, 15 editors said that the source is unreliable and two said that it could be used in limited ways without actually calling it reliable. But the arguments of those two dissenters seemed adequately refuted in discussion. I don't understand how anyone could look at that discussion and claim there is no consensus for unreliability. CodeTalker (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

In that discussion, 15 editors said that the source is unreliable

Not even remotely close to fifteen people were involved in substantial discussion in the 2020 thread. Are you just tallying up all the people who said something like "unreliable per all above" (see WP:POLL, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY)? If you are, the points in that thread were absurd and the arguments were at least partially based on factually untrue statements about how the website functions, as was covered in the 2026 thread. There may have been consensus in 2020, but it's been challenged as of 2026. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

CodeTalker said, in that very post, But the arguments of those two dissenters seemed adequately refuted in discussion. To plug my own essay, your question is WP:Asked and answered.

Most editors who find consensus against them believes the consensus was not consistent with site policies. That's why they disagreed in the first place. That does not give them license to ignore said consensus, no matter how convinced they are that the other side's arguments are wrong. Two completely unrelated editors have chimed in and affirmed that it is clear that there is a consensus for unreliability.

The operative point here is that, even if the consensus is wrong, you don't edit against it. You hold off, you reopen the discussion in the proper venue, (i.e., RSN) and if you're correct and the prior consensus was wrong, a new one will be established. I don't see how this is a controversial approach, or why "Okay, I'll stop adding albumoftheyear until there's a consensus that it may be used" wasn't the immediate response. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to join in with the 2026 discussion ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing a 2026 RSN discussion on the topic linked. If you're going to invite someone, it's usually good form to link it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

It also doesn't address the point: until the new consensus is established, the old one remains in place. Why are you unable to commit to not using albumoftheyear until a new consensus is established? EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and consensus is usually established and changed implicitly. This website doesn't have rules for the sake of it. Let's look at the very basic facts of the matter:

• The source was deemed "unreliable" in a discussion more than half a decade ago
• This was based on poor arguments, including multiple objectively untrue statements about the way the website operated
• Some of the true arguments also apply to basically every review aggregator
• In 2026, I make a thorough post in which I break down why the 2020 thread was poor
• There is some agreement with some of the points; the thread gets auto-archived due to slow activity
• A user makes an AN/I report without ever engaging with the thread or even attempting to get it formally closed

The source's inclusion improves the encyclopedia. Adding another review aggregator provides the readers with another summary of an album's critical consensus, and through a different methodology, as the source uses actual averages instead of a weighted average like Metacritic and Any Decent Music. What harm to the encyclopedia or misleading of the reader do you think is being done? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Correct, the rules aren't there for their own sake. They're there because EVERY editor who disagree with a consensus acting like that consensus wasn't legitimate would cause chaos. You are claiming that 15 editors ALL looked at the same evidence, and ALL came to the wrong conclusion, rather than you looking at the evidence and coming to the wrong conclusion. What's more likely: 15 mistakes or 1 mistake?

The consensus is clear that the source does not improve the encyclopedia. Your own judgement that it does doesn't overrule 15 other editors, no matter how wrong you think they are. I think it's very clear that you not only knowingly edited against consensus because you disagreed with it (and thus claimed it somehow wasn't consensus), but have no inclination to do so any time the consensus does not align with your personal view of what is best. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it's very clear that you [...] have no inclination to do so any time the consensus does not align with your personal view of what is best.

This isn't true at all. I am very much in favour of collaboration and compromise. I don't think you can reliably make this statement about my editing as a whole. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe. Zirthes (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

~2026-41404-95 Hounding and Battleground allegations

As the last two threads had an original point regarding article editing, but got derailed by behavioral allegations, I wanted to make this section here for if Zirthes wants to respond to the hounding accusations. I advise him not to unless asked by another editor, but at least this will (hopefully) separate the TA's counteraccusations from the allegations about their own editing in article space. After all, two things can be true. I fully expect them to accuse me of hounding. If so, I'll be happy to answer any questions others have. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

[Moved three posts about hounding to the section on hounding; posts were replies to this original response by TA] EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about this case, but just let me say that if "hounding" is done in good faith, it's not considered hounding (or wikihounding) and would not be a violation. But, please keep in mind that I don't know if that's the case or not here, I'm just saying this for your information. Jako96 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

No it isn't. Following another editor's contributions can be done in good faith, but hounding is " the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." That is never allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

That's what I just said, if you're confused (which's okay), by the way. Jako96 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I should have paid more attention to "not considered hounding". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, again, it's okay. :) Jako96 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

It's difficult to put into words how unsurprising it is that EducatedRedneck has shown up within one hour of the report. In regards to their statement that I fully expect them to accuse me of hounding, yes, EducatedRedneck and Zirthes have been working together to Wikihound me since late July 2026. I ask any bystanders to ask themselves why EducatedRedneck "fully expected" me to state this. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

As before, if anyone finds that question compelling, I'm happy to explain. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

What did they do? Was it in good faith, or bad faith? What were the symptoms? If you make such an accusation, you'll have to back it up with actual diffs. They expected this, because you already accused someone above and they might be tracking your work in good faith, which is again, not hounding and not a violation as I explained above. Jako96 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

They expected this, because you already accused someone above

Just to be clear, you're speaking on behalf of EducatedRedneck and you're asserting that they knew I would accuse them of Wikihounding because I accused Zirthes of Wikihounding? I don't see how that makes sense. If I actually spend a significant amount of time going back and finding diffs of the two months that EducatedRedneck has been appearing at every Zirthes AN/I post about me within minutes, helping them write reports about me without disclosing their involvement, editing the chronological order of threads, and other such behaviour, I get the feeling you won't take it seriously. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

No, I absolutely will, please share the diffs, but I'm not saying I'll have the time to reply to this discussion for days. If you do not, this accusation would be baseless, and if you want people to discuss the behaviour and admin to take action, you'll have to share at least some diffs. Again, I absolutely will take it seriously, and if I didn't other people can already see everything and diffs are necessary for admin action, if needed (I'm not saying it is needed here or not, but if this is your intention, diffs are needed). Jako96 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, here are some examples off the top of my head. This isn't thorough, because this has been happening since late July 2026 and we're in early October.

7 August 2026 | Prepending my original AN/I report of Zirthes and Zirthes's retaliatory AN/I report of me with a "summary" which is actually just EducatedRedneck's subjective opinions about me and contained factual errors

10 August 2026 | Appearing on my talk page 62 minutes after I requested for admin assistance via template so they can "provide context" (EducatedRedneck is not an admin and would not have been alerted by the template)

22 August 2026 | Appearing on Zirthes's talk page within 68 minutes of them filing another AN/I report about me, helping them re-write the report so that it has a better chance of being "actioned" (note: when EducatedRedneck showed up at that report and I asked them why they weren't disclosing that they were a co-author of the report, they said that was "battleground behaviour") ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I can't see that these are necessarily in bad faith. Just 3 diffs are also not enough, their comment on Zirthes' talk page also may be of them watching ANI or their edits instead. These don't seem to be enough solely, but know that I do not say you're necessarily wrong or not. Jako96 (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If there's anything you need from me, feel free to ask. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

First, seriously thanks for asking me. Well, I could maybe ask that what the TA has meant when they said you wikihounded them, but I'm not sure I'll have the time to comment on this discussion for days. Jako96 (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You asserted that they said I would accuse them of Wikihounding simply because I already accused someone else of Wikihounding. Now you're asking them what they meant after you've already publicly posted an answer they could give you that would satisfy you. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

First, because also that they seemed familiar with this case, but I can see that my prediction could arguably be subjective. Second, I have no bias towards anyone, I just said that your diffs here weren't really enough to be sure that they wikihounded you. Jako96 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

In the interests of brevity, I'll keep it short, but please ask any follow-up questions you like.

I have not wikihounded them, and other than ANI and the talk pages of a few editors related to the previous reports, I think there is no overlap in our editing. They object to me responding to reports quickly, but I just have ANI on my watchlist. I said this in the last report.

My view is that they are unable to distinguish between disagreement and hostility. I had not interacted with the TA until the first report. When I did not find merit in their accusation, they became increasingly combative, and have since decided that I am hounding them. Both ANIs failed to find evidence that they are being hounded, but they persist in insisting it. This is a pattern for them, as they have continued to do accuse others of hounding for disagreeing with them. Even now, they appear to be becoming hostile to you after you did not immediately agree with them. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Both ANIs failed to find evidence that they are being hounded, but they persist in insisting it.

This is a weird thing to say when, since the last AN/I thread, a) more evidence has appeared and b) Zirthes admitted to it.

This is a pattern for them, as they have continued to do accuse others of hounding for disagreeing with them.

I've been editing Wikipedia since mid-2025 and I've never accused anyone except you and Zirthes of Wikihounding.

Even now, they appear to be becoming hostile to you after you did not immediately agree with them.

I would like you to point out which comment in this thread you consider to be an example of unacceptable hostility towards Jako. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

First, if you're talking about the evidence you posted above, they admitted to a good faith tracking, so if they just tracked your edits for reports, it isn't hounding as I said above. Second, yeah, I do miss the evidence that you accused anyone else other than them. Third, your reply saying "Now you're asking them what they meant after you've already publicly posted an answer they could give you that would satisfy you." could be seen as somewhat hostile because you implied that I'm biased immediately, when I meant that your evidence wasn't enough. But I, myself, do not find it "hostile" or "unacceptable", I'd say you misunderstood me or simply were a little inpatient rather. Jako96 (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Just noting the evidence was a linked diff in the text beginning, they have continued... EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. Can you also please show a diff that they accused someone else of wikihounding before? Jako96 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96 See above; the text they have continued... is linked to a diff where an editor templating them over a content dispute devolved into threats of reporting them for hounding. For convenience, I reproduce it here. I suggest reading the entire exchange for context. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

That diff says nothing about Wikihounding. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

It'd be really good if you'd clarify which type of harassment you were talking about, the most related seems to be is hounding. Jako96 (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikihounding is when you follow someone around Wikipedia to repeatedly confront their work. I didn't accuse that user, "Marval", of Wikihounding at all. I did heatedly ask them if they wanted me to report them for, among other things, harassment, because they returned to my talk page after a content dispute solely for the purpose of gloating that another user "proved them right." ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that they were in bad faith? And, the user is btw right when saying that you should not revert again and again when opposed by other, multiple editors. This is edit warring and is prohibited. Jako96 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You want evidence that it's bad faith to return to a user's talk page just to gloat?

And, the user is btw right when saying that you should not revert again and again when opposed by other, multiple editors.

I reported "Marval" for edit-warring. They were warned by an admin. I wasn't. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Can you show us that warning? Jako96 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Can I ask why?

EducatedRedneck posts "proof" that I have a habit of accusing people of Wikihounding. I point out that I didn't accuse the other person of Wikihounding. You ask what I meant by "harassment". I explain. You say "Okay, but you edit-warred with them." Is this not derailing the thread? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

First, the link you provided doesn't seem to be against Marval. Second, I actually agree that you did warn them for harassment, but it's also important that you were right on that issue or not, as it regards your behaviour. Jako96 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello [Marval], if I understand correctly, you have repeatedly restored content someone else had disputed. The idea seems to be that others' reverts have created a consensus strongly enough to justify edit warring. This idea is wrong.

Just to be clear, you're stating that this isn't a warning for edit-warring? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I am so sorry. I didn't notice that. I see it now. Jako96 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I've already seen it when looking at the full exchange, you seem right. It does looks like an implied accusation of hounding, as it was a threat to report harassment, and only relevant harassment seems to be hounding there (I do not say that hounding happened or not, but that type of harassment feels the only related type there). Jako96 (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

But I'll still note that the prediction could be subjective, as they were maybe simply confused, which I'd understand. Jako96 (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. If they can somehow substantiate the hounding allegations, then good for them. I'm more concerned that TWO trips to this board failed to find a consensus that they were being hounded, and they keep insisting it. That seems very much WP:ASPERSIONS to me, even if they tote the same evidence that failed to convince people before. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

yep. if possible, i propose a one way interaction ban barring ~2026-41404-95 from interacting with Zirthes, unless hounding is substantially proven. MessageApp (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

nvm he just posted evidence let me wait a bit Edit: Reaffirm interaction ban for TA. MessageApp (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure an IBAN would solve the article-related issue (in the main section above), but I agree it would solve the WP:ASPERSIONS issue. If you'd like, I can propose it in a new section below. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Considering the TA is still arguing in the thread, you should. This is going nowhere, you can also propose a block for the Album of the Year issue to go along with it if you want MessageApp (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@MessageApp Are you accusing me of bludgeoning the process? What exactly are you claiming is problematic about me posting in an AN/I thread about me? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey i’m sorry, didn’t mean to upset you MessageApp (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Jako96 (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I do think it makes sense that they predicted you would also accuse them, since it seems like they are somewhat familiar with this case. Jako96 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Uh, can TAs have interaction bans? I’ve been looking at the old diffs, it looks like the TA has been engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, but if the TA can provide diffs of Zirthes that are hounding, especially new ones, I could change my mind. Overall, the situation between these two is pretty messy. MessageApp (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

How many diffs do you think would be good? I provided three further up in the thread. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Like one more? Maybe two? idk MessageApp (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, here's two more.

• After I had a content dispute with another user on Daisy Chain Fields, which Zirthes had never edited before, they requested page protection. That would have been the third article that they got protected right after I edited it within a few weeks, although the request wasn't granted. As a side note, the other editor in the dispute ended up apologising for "not assuming good faith" with me and said they would stop editing the article.
• After someone reverted me (without an edit summary, so who knows the exact motivation) adding a single to an album infobox, Zirthes took it upon themselves to leave a warning template on my talk page, despite the text of the template making it clear that it's supposed to be left by the person doing the reverting so that follow-up questions can be asked.

Simply because they're in a different "subsection", I'll copy and paste my first three examples in the thread.

• Derailing a merge proposal with an unrelated rant about the nominated article's title, simply because the nominated article was created by me.

• Adding back paragraphs of entirely unsourced, LLM-generated slop to an article, simply because I was the user who removed it.

• Jumping in to defend plagiarism and copyright violation on Wikipedia, simply because I was the one to report a user for doing it.

~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure this are just in bad faith. These seem to be simply their views to editing, but I note that your proofs aren't "nothing", although I still believe it's highly subjective to straight up say that these were all in bad faith and were done to just target you. Jako96 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The TA seems to have forgotten that they already reported me for hounding in August and no action was taken. I have reported them twice before which have been genuine concerns regarding their editing practices, and both times they severely derailed those reports which I believe was an effort to turn it around onto me and distract from the initial report. This is yet another instance of that happening. The TA refuses to accept any wrong doing in regards to what I actually reported them about, and is instead clutching at straws to attempt to prove that I am instead in the wrong. I have edited hundreds of album and song related articles on Wikipedia, and the TA has also edited many. Naturally we are going to encounter each other while editing which is what I expressed in this report with this statement: " It is highly frustrating for me to work alongside this TA in editing album articles, which they edit many of, when they consistently contribute what I believe are disruptive edits". The TA has had issues with many other editors in articles which we have both edited, not just me. I have also had issues with other editors too, both during the time since I first encountered the TA.

I honestly don't see the TA ever changing their habits because they clearly view these reports as a personal attack and become very defensive. This has already resulted in them blocked for battleground behaviour before. I would like the focus of this report to be on what I actually reported the TA for, so I won't be responding any further and I would encourage others to do the same. Zirthes (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The TA seems to have forgotten that they already reported me for hounding in August and no action was taken.

All of the five examples I've given in the comment above this, which are just a drop in the bucket, are from after that report. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

👏👏 Zirthes (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The first ANI establishes history, as the TA was blocked for 1 week for battleground behavior. The second report, which I can relink if you like, contains more evidence. It was auto-archived without action, with the proposed block having mixed support. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I think TAs can have interaction bans, yeah. I can also agree that the TAs behaviour is not the best. Jako96 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: ~2026-41404-95 is one-way IBANED from Zirthes

Per the above thread, the named TA continues to cast WP:ASPERSIONS by accusing others of wikihounding when multiple reviews by the community found no such thing. A one-way IBAN is the best way to prevent this disruption to the encyclopedia and would stop these accusations that have been rejected by the community.

A brief history: The TA claimed Zirthes was hounding them and filed an ANI report. That report found no evidence that Zirthes was hounding, and resulted in the TA being blocked for battleground. The TA continued to insist Zirthes was hounding despite this, leading to a second ANI case which found no evidence that the TA was being hounded. The TA continues to repeat their accusations that have been rejected by the community, maintains above that they are hounded by Zirthes, and gives no indication that they will stop. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Jako96 (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose based on common sense. Below will be my final comment on this particular matter in this thread, although I will continue to engage with any good-faith comments from users about albumoftheyear.org as a source in the section at the top.

As per WP:ASPERSIONS, On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence. Accusing someone of hounding as they spend two months (and counting) repeatedly confronting your edits at an absurdly high rate, with blatantly flimsy reasoning most times, after they admit to watching your edit history closely, is not "casting aspersions".

As already mentioned above, here are just three particularly severe examples of Zirthes hounding me, which go beyond being annoying for me personally and cross the line into actively disrupting the site. [edited after first reply to add: Note that they all take place after the last time the community supposedly "rejected" my claim]:

• Derailing a merge proposal with an unrelated rant about the nominated article's title, simply because the nominated article was created by me. The closing admin described the derailment as some irrelevant dispute about the name of the concert.
• Adding back paragraphs of entirely unsourced, LLM-generated slop to an article, simply because I was the user who removed it. As you can see, Zirthes didn't get a very positive reception here at the AI noticeboard, which resulted in their confrontations of my edits noticeably stopping for a few days.
• Jumping in to defend plagiarism and copyright violation on Wikipedia, simply because I was the one to report a user for doing it. Here, Zirthes argued that a user knowingly copying and pasting material from drafts which were already submitted for review and creating mainspace articles without proper attribution might also encourage a review. When someone else jumped in to agree with me that you can't plagiarise on Wikipedia, they left a snarky response.

Zirthes's insistence that they're not maliciously hounding, but rather that they're protecting Wikipedia from my "disruptive edits", is absurd. On the same day that I had a content dispute on Daisy Chain Fields (which resulted in the other user apologising for "not assuming good faith with the TA" and promising to stop editing the article), Zirthes (who had never edited the article before) requested page protection. When that didn't work out, they added tags to the article for non-encyclopedic tone and promotional material. Here is an example of the material I wrote that they, on the talk page, highlight as non-encyclopedic and promotional: Rodrigo co-designed a collection of merchandise for the festival with ten female entrepreneurs; the collection was available for online purchase through Etsy and also on festival grounds. That was sourced to notable entertainment magazine Billboard. Here are some excerpts of the unsourced LLM slop they re-added to Innanetape, which they had also never edited before, within 24 hours of me removing it: Innanetape is widely cited as a foundational pillar of the 2010s Chicago hip-hop renaissance. Released alongside other highly acclaimed independent projects from the city, the mixtape helped solidify a distinct, alternative movement within the local youth culture. [...] The mixtape had a profound impact on the local community, demonstrating to independent Chicago artists that global reach could be achieved without immediate major-label backing. Zirthes wants you to believe that the former material, that I was involved in, is unacceptably un-encyclopedic, and that latter material, which I removed, is acceptable.

The TA continued to insist Zirthes was hounding despite this, leading to a second ANI case which found no evidence that the TA was being hounded.

This is objectively false. There was no second AN/I report about me being hounded which stemmed from comments I made. Zirthes filed a spurious AN/I report against me and I brought up the hounding during it, but that wasn't what the report was about. As a side note, that report was largely focused on the fact that I a) add citations for review aggregators Metacritic and Any Decent Music's averages being weighted, and b) don't use the "ADM" parameter of the Music ratings template, which auto-displays "AnyDecentMusic?", which I believe to be a violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style's policy on trademarks. These are allegedly deeply disruptive, but plagiarism supposedly isn't. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I note the above WP:WALLOFTEXT and restating of points that were not convincing above is a separate issue from the aspersions on Zirthes. If anyone feels that they should be addressed in another way, I can make another subsection below.

For reference, this is the second ANI thread. I may have misspoke; it was in the ANI thread that the TA accused Zirthes (and me) of Wikihounding, and had not one editor agree with their accusations. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not even going to acknowledge the personal attacks and misrepresentation of mine and other editor's intentions that you keep spewing, because I would prefer to focus on the facts of the matter.

Some more obscure articles I have edited, including Innanetape, I was made aware of indirectly through this or other noticeboards or secondary notifications from talk page discussions that had been placed as subsections under month-related sections that I initiated, mostly on your own talk page. I did not simply restore "LLM slop" content to Innanetape, I added a maintenance template to allow the editor to find appropriate sources, while the article was clearly in early development. I did not continue to restore the prose after my initial reversion, and after it was made clear to me that the editor had no intention of correctly sourcing the prose they attempted to add and subsequently making the effort to reword it. I do not appreciate being accused of supporting LLM content on Wikipedia because of one possible lapse in judgement. I spend a significant amount of time on finding sources, structuring prose, and copyediting, whether this is to new articles or existing ones, such as on Change (Sugababes album) which I spent a year and half improving before bringing it to GA. In regards to the plagiarism issue with Eggpot, I misunderstood aspects of that discussion and I immediately backed out once I received clarification and realised I was wrong. If only you were able to do the same.

I have an interest in popular, mainstream events in music whether that is albums, songs, concerts, or tours, and I am allowed to edit articles and participate in discussions on them if I want to. I have not been blocked from engaging with you or your edits, which I rarely do despite what you are trying to show here, and I have a right to make corrections if they are done in good faith. Like I have already said, I have edited hundreds of articles in my almost 3 years on Wikipedia, and I'm sure only a tiny fraction of these you have ever been near. You are clearly trying to derail this report yet again to paint a picture of what you believe to be true, when once again, the actual thing I was reporting you for ends up getting lost in all of this, which I strongly believe is why we are still here 3 months later. If the focus was actually on the issues I reported you for, I honestly believe all of this could have been dealt with a lot sooner. Zirthes (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support. An interaction ban is required at this point. HypnoBlader (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support though it should be also made crystal clear to the TA that the interaction ban would be on them, the person behind the TA, not just the TA account itself. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'm aware. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Per request, I will clarify further my reasoning. I think the TA has personalized this dispute excessively, and has proven immune to de-weaponizing the dispute, either on their own accord, or after others have asked them to. Between the bludgeoning, the aspersions, and the inability to drop the stick, for the good of the project, the stick needs to be removed. The TA has indicated on my talk page that they are aware an iban would cover them on their next TA, so that part of my support vote is moot. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Support per WP:Battleground. MessageApp (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Two-way interaction ban between ~2026-41404-95 and Zirthes

If my Wikihounding allegations are true (which I believe they blatantly are), a one-way interaction ban would only make me defenseless against it. However, if they aren't, and I am as disruptive an editor as has been implied, it won't be long before I am subject to sanctions unrelated to Zirthes. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as punitive to Zirthes, who has not edited disruptively. Would not oppose broader sanctions on the TA for unrelated to Zirthes (e.g., editing against consensus, battleground). EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTPENAL ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

... Yes. That's why I opposed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Jako96 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. HypnoBlader (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: ~2026-41404-95 is indeffed

Following their continued IDHT above the TA is indef blocked for WP:IDHT/WP:DE. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 16:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 16:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Support. Zirthes (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Support. HypnoBlader (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I also would like to add that the TA also removed someone's comment here, which isn't allowed. So, an Indef block is required along with an IBAN if the TA is unblocked. HypnoBlader (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't even been aware of that. They've been linked to WP:TPO and WP:REDACT repeatedly now. They know better, it just seems like they don't care to follow the rules they don't agree with. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how this wouldn't be completely overkill, especially when there are two other proposals. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Support. I also thought about this. Jako96 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

And, I'm NOT canceling my support for the IBAN proposal above by the way. Both the block and the ban should be applied, in case the user would be unblocked after for example. Jako96 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Support. Between WP:BATTLEGROUND, refusal to abide by consensus (see main section), and WP:ASPERSIONS, this editor is a net negative. Concur with also implementing IBAN. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Weak Support , the TA has been somewhat constructive in the past, but it is clear that they continue to argue in this thread and are ignoring consensus in some ways. MessageApp (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Issue about replacing an image

Reporting WayKurat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I recently changed an infobox image for a tv show News on Q. I did that because according to MOS:TVIMAGE ("For a main article, it is preferable to use an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title"). Now the uploader of the file that I removed, reverted my edits. The second revert had this unfriendly edit summary ("rv, here you go again with replacing old images with similar images that you uploaded. please stop this, you are doing WP:OWN again on several articles"]. The file I uploaded is a screenshot from a YouTube video, which is obviously an intertitle of the show.. WayKurat is claiming I uploaded the same file from their upload, when thats not even true. WayKurat's upload from many years ago isn't the same file I uploaded. My upload also has a working reference while WayKurat's contains a dead link. I am bringing this up in ANI,because me and WayKurat had issues in the past. I cannot deal with reverting their edits again and again, when they aren't willing to listen to what I'm saying. So I'm just reporting them here right away. I tried to explain it in their own talk page and they just reverted it. then claimed I was doing WP:OWN again for replacing their file. I haven't interacted with that editor for years as well, to be greeted with such hostile behavior. Hotwiki (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Also for more context, if I'm not mistaken, the last time I interacted with WayKurat until today, was when I reported them for edit warring in the Tv show article Saksi, which got them blocked for edit warring. Hotwiki (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Here we go again with your editing attitude. For years, you are doing the same scheme of replacing old images with the same image, with the only difference is that YOU will be credited as the uploader. If your rationale of uploading a new image is to have it "properly sourced", why not just use the "upload a new version" option or just edit the rationale with the new link? Is that even difficult for you to do? Again, I don't want to open old issues but this has been going on for years (just look at how we argued on regarding the Saksi and 24 Oras articles). I think I'm not the only one that are having problems with Hotwiki. Most Philippine based editors are having problems with him, especially when it comes to GMA Network related articles. That OWNING approach on GMA Network articles has to stop. This has been escalated numerous time to administrators but no action has been taken. -WayKurat (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

"Scheme". Okay, now there's another attack from WayKurat. Hotwiki (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Images are similar, but not the exact same, the one that WayKurat uploaded was inherently low quality, while the one HotWiki uploaded was higher-quality, and was overall a better image to use.

Give a stern warning to WayKurat about personal attacks, thats all the action needed from my point of view. shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@EditorShane3456: Can I now revert my edit back on News on Q? Hotwiki (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess? But wait until this discussion ends because WP:EW could happen again. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! The speedy deletion request by WayKurat has also been declined. The file I uploaded has until October 9, 2026, before it gets deleted for being an orphaned file. Hotwiki (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• On Talk:News on Q "Latest comment: 19 years ago by BetacommandBot in topic Fair use rationale for Image:News on q.jpg" 19 years ago? Perhaps a new discussion might be better created there rather than here? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Can this get more discussion from the administrators? The file involved in this report only has until October 9, 2026 before it gets deleted. I haven't added the file back on the artile News on Q yet, to prevent possible edit warring with WayKurat. Hotwiki (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Evaluate for NOTHERE

• Ghost-of-Kantorovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor should be evaluated for WP:NOTHERE

• Treating editing as a battleground
• Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention

See:

Contentious topics notice to talk page: Contentious topics notice on article page (Holodomor):

Total User contributions 33 edits

I think this may be a sockpuppet from their editing, but have no proof.

 // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

“this has been discussed many times before, with the same tired arguments. It's usually brought up by someone with very few edits but an incredible knowledge of how Wikipedia works, they start multiple discussions, write walls of text, and try to wear down established editors.”

Yes. I’m the guilty party. Ghost-of-Kantorovich (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Japanese nationalist NOTHERE 2nd report

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jmtwgpad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last report resulted in block for edit warring. Continuing to edit war after bblock expired . WP:SEALION and WP:DIDNTHEAR in talk . Denial of obvious AI generated comments . Per previous report, already banned on Korean Wiki for block evasion, has been reported on Japanese Wiki for behavior like edit warring, mass blanking on subjects like comfort women and the pages edit warred on EN Wiki . Qiushufang (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Please stop making baseless accusations. I have been engaging in discussion on the talk page, whereas you reverted my edits without doing so; this constitutes a violation of WP:POINT. Furthermore, the claim that the content was created by AI is nothing more than an unfounded accusation. It is precisely the act of reverting edits without discussing them on the talk page that amounts to WP: DIDNTHEAR Jmtwgpad (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Block the exchange in the Imjin War talk page where the user found a single source and refuses to explain why that overrides 3 others is illustrative of this issue. I asked them thrice to explain why that single source overrode the others, they just stonewalled.

Also yea noting the nationalist streak. Every single one of their edits push far right Japanese views on all the language wikipedias they've edited. On the Korean Wikipedia, they tried doing this and were blocked for sockpuppeting. On the Japanese Wikipedia their first edits were on a far right urban legend that Koreans drink poop . They then moved onto a bunch of other hot button social topics that the far right fixate on in terms of Koreans, with every one of the edits leaning towards portraying them negatively. That joyfully includes comfort women denial . I'm not saying this is blockable on enwiki, I'm saying this is context. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Please stop making baseless personal attacks based on trumped-up accusations. First, please provide evidence for the claim that I edited the text to state that modern South Koreans drink excrement. Second, stop applying baseless labels like "far-right" or "nationalist" to me. Furthermore, I have not been asked any such question. As you can see from the talk page, what I actually said was that in complex situations, one should use the expression "see aftermath"—even if the information is factual—and I have already explained the reasoning for this. It is also nonsensical to claim that replacing the incorrect term "identical" with "similar" amounts to far-right behavior. Jmtwgpad (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

First, please provide evidence for the claim that I edited the text to state that modern South Koreans drink excrement I never said that. I did say that you fixating on that topic and then immediately moving on to other topics exclusively about Koreans and then consistently portraying Koreans negatively in all of them is not an encouraging sign.

what I actually said was that in complex situations, one should use the expression "see aftermath"

And what I said was that you're assuming the situation is complex without actually providing evidence of that. You provided a single source, why does that override 3?

Ironically illustrative of the stonewalling going on. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

First of all, you were the one who brought up that topic. You made a slanderous accusation that I was portraying Koreans negatively, even though I had never said any such thing. I asked you to provide a source demonstrating that the premise—namely, that Toyotomi Hideyoshi's death brought the Korean campaigns to an end—was incorrect, yet you failed to do so. In fact, those three sources do not contradict the statement that Hideyoshi's death ended the campaigns; in other words, the statements are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, my remarks do not constitute stonewalling. Jmtwgpad (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I asked you to provide a source demonstrating that the premise—namely, that Toyotomi Hideyoshi's death brought the Korean campaigns to an end—was incorrect

I literally never disagreed with the premise, why would I need to prove something I don't believe? Of course I believe that's why the war ended, but again I think that's not mutually exclusive with a loss. And again, what matters is what historians think, not what we think.

This is stonewalling. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

In other words, I am saying that in such a complex situation, one should use the phrase "see aftermath." It is a historical fact that the Japanese forces withdrew following the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. However, since writing it that way is prohibited on Wikipedia, I am arguing that the expression "see aftermath" should be used. My actions do not constitute stonewalling at all. Jmtwgpad (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I am saying that in such a complex situation

And I'm saying there is insufficient evidence for "such a complex situation". This is the last time I'll discuss this with you; repetitive now due to the stonewalling grapesurgeon (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

You are the one who can be accused of stonewalling—specifically, by failing to offer any concrete counter-arguments against the statement that, given the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the focus should be on the aftermath. Jmtwgpad (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

You said your one source is more important than the three present in the article, and disregarded the good points of multiple users such as Qiushufang and grapesurgeon on this. Academic consensus on the Imjin War universally agrees (outside of far-right/revisionist circles in Japan) that the war ended in a Joseon and Ming victory. Also making that counter-ANI against grapesurgeon was incredibly inappropriate. You should re-examine your conduct as admin is clearly not happy with your behavior. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for DE. I was very close to an INDEF. Jmtwgpad, your conduct needs to change when the block expires. None of the difs cited here nor your subthread below is appropriate. Star Mississippi 15:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Baseless accusations and personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Grapesurgeon

This user engaged in disruptive editing on the "Imjin War" talk page by tagging another participant's comments as "AI-generated," accusing them of using AI during a discussion. Furthermore, the user has repeatedly engaged in such personal attacks.

Jmtwgpad (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Retaliatory filing due to the above report. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

No, this is not an act of retaliation; it is a legitimate report. After all, if it were retaliation, I would have reported the user above. Jmtwgpad (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Uhhuh. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Dismissing something as nonsense without any basis and sending provocative messages amounts to a refusal to engage in dialogue. Jmtwgpad (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Who made that edit you just linked? grapesurgeon (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

that wasn't your edit. In any case, I'll put the announcement text back. Jmtwgpad (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

So you made a false personal attack on me without basis... grapesurgeon (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

No. A personal attack refers to the act of labeling someone based on factors such as political beliefs or race, or making baseless disparaging remarks about their character. There is a clear distinction between criticism and a personal attack. Please take note of this. Jmtwgpad (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Uhhuh. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Suggest boomerang since we're done here. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 06:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Why is that? In what way does my statement backfire on me? Jmtwgpad (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jmtwgpad What kind of keyboard do you have, model-number wise? This could help. — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I am using an iPad for editing. Jmtwgpad (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you often type two dashes consecutively? - Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I sometimes use a translation tool, so my original message might end up being translated in that way. Jmtwgpad (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

What I asked for is whether you used artificial intelligence to write. While you're allowed to use machine translation, that must be disclosed, and you only now disclosed that for the first time. I can remove the AI collapse tags, but this interaction was on you for not being transparent earlier. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The use of machine translation is permitted. While the use of AI for text generation is prohibited, I have already explicitly stated my position on the talk page. Nevertheless, tagging my comments as "obviously AI-generated" isn’t inappropriate Jmtwgpad (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• is inappropriate Jmtwgpad (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

This is not explicit. The text Even if I were... suggests that you were not using Machine Translation. - Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

That was a mistake in how I phrased things. I have clearly stated on the talk page that I do not use AI generation. After all, there is no downside for me to openly admit using translation tools. Jmtwgpad (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Nevertheless, tagging my comments as "obviously AI-generated" isn’t inappropriate

ignoring your grammar error here, tagging your comments as such before you ever disclosed machine translation is a reasonable thing to do. You realize that machine translation is AI right? It uses more or less the same technology: LLMs. So I had correctly identified that you were using LLMs, but you were just using them for an approved purpose. You didn't disclose the approved purpose properly and only now revealed it after 3 asks. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

There is no rule requiring one to declare the use of a translation tool beforehand. Furthermore, you proceeded to revert my edits even after I denied using AI generation. I had already clearly explained this on my own talk page before being asked about it three times. I am clearly saying no. Jmtwgpad (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

While there isn't a rule, I had correctly identified that your prose was generated by an AI (a machine translator). I then asked you if you were using AI, you said no which I was correct to not believe. I even asked you if you were using machine translation, you gave a vague reply.

It only took until this ANI thread for you to properly say you were using machine translation. If you had been up front about that in the first message this would have been fine.

And to be clear: you understand that machine translation == LLMs == AI? They are the same base technology now. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

That statement is clearly odd. If you had simply meant it in the sense of machine translation, you wouldn't have attached a tag like that or said that the comment should be ignored. Jmtwgpad (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

What? You're not interpreting my message correctly.

I initially accused you of using generative AI to write. My suspicion was reasonable, because you were. However, the issue was you were using it for an approved purpose (machine translation), you just never disclosed the approved purpose clearly. I even asked you if you were using it for machine translation, and you did not answer me clearly.

So my initial collapsing of your messages was actually justified based on my suspicions. However, now that you've admitted that you were using it for machine translation, the tags are inappropriate. Do you understand? grapesurgeon (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That I was actually using generative AI? That is clearly incorrect. Machine translation does not fall under the category of generative AI. That is why I gave a clear "no"—because, in fact, I haven't used AI at all. Jmtwgpad (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Machine translation Initial approaches were mostly rule-based or statistical in nature. However, these methods have since been superseded by neural machine translation and large language models. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The basis for you tagging my text was your determination that it fell under the category of generative AI. Naturally, the term "AI" in your question—asking whether I was using AI—also refers to generative AI. Therefore, I gave a clear "no" the moment you first asked me. Jmtwgpad (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Boomerang or no action (filer is already the subject of two other ongoing administrative noticeboard discussions). Let's not waste more energy on this. The diffs are not sanctionable; the filer has admitted they are in fact using an LLM, and calling out POV-editing is not a personal attack. I don't see how continuing this will do anything other than cause further disruption. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 08:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Consumer-facing services like Google Translate do not fall under the category of LLMs. How does this argument backfire on me? It makes no sense. Furthermore, accusations such as "gleefully spreading rumors about South Korea" or "trolling" constitute personal attacks. Jmtwgpad (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Google Translate Since 2020, Google has phased out GNMT and has implemented deep learning networks based on transformers.

Transformer (deep learning) Later variations have been widely adopted for training large language models (LLMs) on large (language) datasets. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

LLM refers to a model that has been pre-trained on massive amounts of data for general-purpose use and is capable of handling a wide range of language tasks; Google Translate does not fall into this category. Jmtwgpad (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Google Translate actually does work via an LLM these days, but that isn't really why I mentioned a boomerang; you seem unaware we count that as LLM-use (if not reviewed, which I believe is what the accusations are anyways). The reason I think a boomerang might be in order because of your behaviour in general. I see what grapesurgeon said. I have read the diffs. In my view I have every reason to believe grapesurgeon is correct, and filing an ANI against an editor in good standing because they pointed out serious issues with your pattern of editing is highly disruptive. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 09:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Zorawar385 has made mutiple comments about users being "non-educated and dumb editors" [] and "one sided" [] defending it as " I just said those were some past editors". Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

On wikipedia I seldom edit, I only commented this statement not multiple, you can check Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict Zorawar385 (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven is reverting my edits from past 2 days siting illogical reason such as slow page loading due to image insertion and now added me to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Below is the conversation against my Independent & reliable Image for 025 India–Pakistan conflict

Because pictures add to the overall size of the page, and slow loading, for no meaningful benefit. So I am oout of here with a firm no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess your wifi is laggin thats your personal problem ig, the wiki pages with pictures that i access are loading properly....thats not even a logical reason to not to put pictures.....there are several wikipedia pages holding 10s of pictures why isn't wikipedia removing this images features if this causes a major issue for reader?? Zorawar385 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I would like to request community review of a dispute concerning the addition of an independently sourced image to the article 2025 India–Pakistan crisis.

I added an image from an independent and reliable source because I believed that it provided relevant visual documentation of the subject covered by the article. The image was subsequently reverted by Slatersteven.

When I raised the issue, the explanation given for rejecting the image was: (I too have a screenshot of this)

“Because pictures add to the overall size of the page, and slow loading, for no meaningful benefit. So I am out of here with a firm no.”

I understand that editors may disagree about whether a particular image provides sufficient encyclopedic value. However, I believe the stated justification raises a legitimate question for community review. The objection appears to focus primarily on page size and loading speed rather than addressing the image's relevance, provenance, licensing, reliability of the source, or whether it materially improves the reader's understanding of the article.

My concern is not that another editor disagreed with my edit. I accept that Wikipedia requires consensus and that editors are entitled to remove material they consider unsuitable. My concern is whether the removal was adequately justified under Wikipedia's content and image-related principles, particularly given that the image came from an independent and reliable source and was intended to provide relevant documentation of the subject.

I am also concerned that the matter was subsequently escalated to the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. I would prefer that the underlying content dispute be examined on its merits rather than allowing the disagreement over the image to become primarily a conduct dispute.

I therefore respectfully request that uninvolved editors review:

1. Whether the image is relevant and provides encyclopedic value to the article.
2. Whether the source of the image is independent and reliable, and whether its provenance/licensing satisfies Wikipedia's requirements.
3. Whether page-loading concerns, by themselves, provide sufficient grounds for removing an otherwise relevant image.
4. Whether the discussion and reversion were handled appropriately, including whether sufficient explanation was provided for rejecting the image.
5. Whether the matter should be resolved through normal article talk-page consensus/dispute resolution rather than escalation to an incidents noticeboard.

I am willing to accept the community's decision regarding the image. My objective is simply to have the issue considered on the basis of Wikipedia's applicable policies and the merits of the image, rather than on an assumption that the image has no value because it increases page size.

I also acknowledge that repeatedly reverting disputed content would not be an appropriate way to resolve the matter. I therefore seek an independent review and consensus rather than continuing a revert cycle.

Thank you to the uninvolved editors who take the time to review the dispute.

Zorawar385 (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss content disputes, so I will not.This is about your personal attacks on that talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I will note that, while an extra 540 kb isn't exactly a massive page-size burden, it would be if people added such images willy-nilly. There was clearly opposition to this specific image. @Zorawar385 when you find yourself reverted by two different editors over the same edit in short succession, the answer is not to demand that you are right and start throwing insults. See WP:IMRIGHT. This is a collaborative project and there are editors who take page size very seriously. These editors have just as much right to express that constructive concern as you do to argue you believe the image has value. Responding I guess your wifi is laggin thats your personal problem ig is deeply unhelpful. I suggest you step back from this, apologize for the personal attacks, and take a 24 hour break. There's no deadline and, if in 24 hours you still feel this image has significant pedagogical value, you can take that 24 hours to figure out a WP:FOC compliant method of persuading those editors who presently see them as 540 kb of wasted space that they actually merit inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

ok I get it i will be mindful of that next time....but @Simonm223 they are rejecting an sources which is obviously of an Indpendent & Reliable channel to be inserted even after giving them links & proofs on a illogical grounds , @Slatersteven is stating page will load slow, there are thousands of wiki pages containing 10s of pictures it doesn't load slow in my case...can you suggest next steps for arbitration? Zorawar385 (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven @Sutyarashi Zorawar385 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I have already said I will only discuss your actions here (not content). Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

no I just mentioned you here, just wanted you to see the reply thats it, the other user sutyarashi who was opposing was not mentioned here so thought of mentioning you both... Zorawar385 (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

If I had told them about this, that would have been bordering on wp:canvassing, as I had not mentioned them; this was about what you said, not what anyone else had. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

see i do not edit daily..........lots of rules and systems to learn by ... Zorawar385 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Zorawar385 nobody on this page is going to care whether the editors who oppose you are disregarding the reliability of a source when the material is being removed on WP:UNDUE grounds. In effect the locus of the editing dispute has nothing to do with reliability. They will care a great deal if you are being rude to other editors and then justifying that to uninvolved people who point out that rudeness. They will also care if you are using an LLM to produce your statements as nobody likes arguing with a bot. I will reiterate my initial suggestion: apologize to the people you insulted and take a short voluntary break from that page before someone decides you need to take an involuntary break from it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Again I do not edit daily..........lots of rules and systems to learn by.....I'll be mindfull sorry Zorawar385 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you using an LLM to edit? ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

And this response was AI generated with 100% confidence from GPTzero

The bolding is a huge sign of AI generated-comment-slop.

@Zorawar385 please see WP:LLMTALK and WP:LLMDISRUPT

Courtesy ping @Slatersteven @Sutyarashi shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Zorawar385, are you using LLM to write up replies for you? This includes responses generated from AI models and subsequently "edited to be in your own words". Sutyarashi (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean, the WP:WALL that was closed uses the AI hatclose, and had a 100% confidence rating so...? shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to hear from Zorawar385 about its use in their own words, if they may. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The wall of text was originally a complaint (as well as a PA) [], why was it not jsut removed, and thre user warned about it for that report? Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Zorawar385 will we hear from you regarding the use of LLM or not. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

some icanthearyouitosis is going on right now... shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm now sure it's a case of IDHT. If Zorawar385 doesn't clear up soon I support an indefinite block for the use of LLM, coupled with personal attacks and failure to accept the responsibility. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

whats LLM? and why are you threatening me for block? Zorawar385 (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok LLM AI you mean, No I definitely not AI..... Zorawar385 (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi you can't couple up allegations of "personal attacks" for which I already replied "sorry" to...thats pure threatening Zorawar385 (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

This can become a general discussion about general behaviour (such as your bludgeoning). Also they did not say you were AI, they asked if you were using AI. Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

sorry that was a typo mistake I said "I did not use AI". Lets just finish this as I said I am sorry for my behaviour on the talk page and didn't use AI Zorawar385 (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Well either you're right or the editors who tagged and collapsed your comment. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi if editors have tagged it I don't have a say on it if they feel like it they can do it, I have just answered the question clearly, I would humbly request you to try not to start a battle here between me and editors who have tagged it as it won't change my answer......... Zorawar385 (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

There is also (I feel) a wp:cir issue; they admit they do not know what they are doing, but feel qualified to preach policy. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven let the editor who tagged it decide what to do with the comment, Don't bludgeon the process through an excessive number of comments, refer to -

• WP:BLUDGEON

Zorawar385 (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the editor who tagged that comment. It's unambiguously LLM-generated; there isn't a bit of doubt in my mind about that. Some key points are the notably different writing style from your other comments here, the use of bolding all over the place, the numbered list, and the preoccupation with Wikipedia policy and review from independent, uninvolved editors.

@Zorawar385, I'm not taking any position on the dispute between you and @Slatersteven, but it's important that you don't use LLMs to generate your communications with other editors here. We need to hear what you think, not what came out when you prompted a chatbot. LLM comments are generally too long and get things wrong—that's why they get collapsed like the one above. Thanks for understanding. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I meant to add: see WP:LLMCOMM for more info on this. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Alright no problem... Zorawar385 (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

You can't just say alright and call it the day. Did you, or not, use LLM ("AI") to write above comment and are you still using it to write comments for you at the article talk page? Otherwise it's perplexing why you don't appear to get the editors' objections. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi I am not arguing with you here, my work was done when I affirmed with the editor who tagged that comment and said sorry for my behaviour on previous comment, If you comment again and start to argue here despite case being closed by @Suðurhafsljósæta & @Slatersteven, I will report you for mental harassment under "repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention". Zorawar385 (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I have closed no case. What are you talking about?. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I did apologize here for the statement as @Simonm223 said as I was unaware of the rules, so whats next you want me to do? Zorawar385 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Well for one, you can actually answer the questions asked, WHAT DID I CLOSE? and it does not matter if you say sorry; you have to say "NEVER AGAIN". Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

wdym? Zorawar385 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Seriously? its hard right now to not breach wp:npa myself. How is the question WHAT DID I CLOSE? confusing? Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

no am I talking about the latter part of the sentence... Zorawar385 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

• CIR issues are clearly visible. Their continued bludgeoning on talk page is also troublesome. I am all in support of a topic ban from Indian military history for this editor. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  case is closed sir, I affirmed my answer earlier with @Suðurhafsljósæta, If he feel like tagging its completely of due course of action Zorawar385 (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

And following their latest posts yes, a Tban is in order wp:cir red flags are showing in this one, and I just feel they will always argue the toss as they KNOW!. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC) To add, yes many of their responses do not look as if they are even based on what they are replying to. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC) Frankky, after the last post, I am leaning toward a TBAN. As it may be a sign, they will drag other articles into this dispute for wp:pointy reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

As an involved party (I was unwise enough to look at the thread concerned to see what it was about, and made the mistake of pointing out the obvious), me supporting a topic ban might be seen as of limited validity, but it certainly looks as if we may be going that way. The thread is archetypal refusal-to-get-the-point stuff, and the consensus that the contested montage isn't appropriate is overwhelming. A topic ban would seem entirely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in that discussion I support a topic ban for WP:CIR and failure to get the point. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump as mentioned and recorded statements at talk pages I was putting my point as mentioned in procedure 1)Talk Pages 2) Dispute Resolution 3) Arbitration, this is the standard procedure and I haven't broken any rule Zorawar385 (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

As multiple people have already pointed out to you, we do not use arbitration to settle content disputes. Furthermore, where consensus is already overwhelmingly clear, as it is here, taking something to dispute resolution may be seen as disruptive. Your continued failure to take the slightest notice of anything you have been told is precisely why a topic ban is ben seen as necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Alright @Slatersteven @AndyTheGrump I am going with the consensus don't put the images, but I still feel the edits are being selective and favoured (not pointing out to anyone), but I just need a final answer from editors other than these 2 editors, that why is the US airstrike video which is US Open Government Database still up on 2025–2026 United States airstrikes in Syria but rejecting this Indian Open Government Database through US Independent firm Maxar? Zorawar385 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nobody is obliged to engage in endless discussion of anything you can cherry-pick from other articles discussing other topics. And please stop spouting this 'independent' crap. The Indian authorities selected the images. Not Maxar. The Indian authorities added the labels. Not Maxar. Given your continued refusal to take any notice of statements of the obvious, a topic ban is clearly still necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I didn't ask you I am asking others, if you don't have any logical argument other than talking haywire then I am not interested in your unhealthy conversation, if you think this is not Independent then there should be consensus of removing one sided US airstrike video on 2025–2026 United States airstrikes in Syria. "Don't attempt to force your point of view through a very high number of comments , please refer to Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process." Zorawar385 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

As a party involved in the thread here (still no position on the original dispute), I feel the same way as AndyTheGrump. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Suðurhafsljósæta why following the procedure is getting me banned, can you elaborate? 1)Talk Pages 2) Dispute Resolution 3) Arbitration which i am following right now Zorawar385 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd support and indef block for WP:CIR Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 16:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• The user has made constructive edits but outside this area of Indian military. I agree with the proposed topic ban as suitable option. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Can we please not litigate the content dispute here? Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I truly agree with you, @AndyTheGrump is misusing this Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents platform for content discussion. Zorawar385 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

And this wasn't? At this point; I'm inclined to support an indef block on the grounds of a sheer stubborn refusal to actually think before posting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban on Indian military. I can see the argument for a WP:CIR block given the "throw shit at the wall and see it sticks" approach, especially when responding to Andy, but call me naïve, but I think this editor might be more productive outside of this area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposed temperary ban

The lack of self-awareness is either too stunning for words or dishonest to the point of hypocrisy. I do not care how useful the user has been in the past; I think this just shows they have not been editing anything controversial, and that if they do, they will behave in exactly the same way, as they clearly do not get what they are doing as wrong. In fact (far from it) they see everyone else as in the wrong, and they are in the right. So I think they need to go away for a bit and reflect. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

insufficient. Support WP:CIR indef block, per this abject refusal to demonstrate the slightest willingness (or capacity) to even attempt to understand points being made by other contributors. Responding to a link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with exactly the same argument that led to the link being posted is beyond absurdity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• ...what the heck happened here? Having looked through the above, and then looked at Zorawar385's talk page, I have imposed an arbitration enforcement topic ban from WP:CT/IMH on Zorawar385. This does not prejudice the community choosing to impose any additional sanctions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring topic ban?

User went right back to editing in the history section of Indian military articles, possibly ignoring their tban.. -- Veggies (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that article falls under IMH, especially the section they have been editing. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

And they are appealing the ban; they are not listening. They do not see why they have been banned. This is heading into IBAN territory. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month for pretty obvious TBAN violations. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

And now an SPA IP has fetched up to challenge the block. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Racist and deplorable rants

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tr23c (talk · contribs) has been adding deplorable and racist rants to talk pages like Talk:Slavs and adding anti-semitic "theories" to 23andMe. On their talk page, they have also been continuing, asking Wikipedia to falsify their WP:SOAPBOX sloppage and nonsense.

@MrOllie and an involved TA have been reverting Tr23c's edits, but it seems we have a massive case of icanthearyouitosis from Tr23's as they cant seem to get the points that:

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox
• We are not a courtroom
• We are not a field of war
• And we are not lawyers

Diffs: , , ,

Edit: They have been blocked but the community needs to have some sort of discussion on this.

I propose a community ban or some sort of block for this behavior as this is starting to become disruptive and wasting volunteer time. shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

While the worst edits have been suppressed and so we cannot see just how bad it gets, those edits which are not suppressed are bad enough. WP:HID applies and, as all this editor does is either make racist edits or argue that those racist edits were justified, I'd suggest WP:NOTHERE applies and an indefinite CBAN is an appropriate course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

They're indeffed and they're never going to be unblocked on the basis of what they've written. Have there been previous examples of this (i.e. is this a sock?) Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Suppressing those edits was a bad idea in my opinion, for the purpose of community consensus, they should be able to see the edits. shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The reason we do that is so that a sock of the blocked editor (or someone wanting to cause trouble) can't come along and re-instate the whole load of drivel in a couple of clicks; they'd have to write it again. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I've got no objection to the suppression. I saw one diff before it was suppressed and it was racist drivel with no place on WP. Nor does its purveyor. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a small note, they (may have) re-appeared as Trc34 (talk · contribs). Since the account was created after the original block, a CU may be needed for any sleepers. - Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive gatekeeping and systemic violations of WP:BITE by User:Gurkubondinn

I am bringing to the attention of administrators the conduct of User:Gurkubondinn regarding their hostile approach toward new and non-native English editors, violating WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL.

Recently, after I manually researched and edited the Nelories article, Gurkubondinn reverted my edits, assuming they were generated by an LLM. When I politely explained on my talk page that the research was entirely my own and that I only used translation tools to help polish my English grammar, Gurkubondinn responded with overtly hostile and exclusionary comments, discouraging non-native speakers from editing the English Wikipedia:

• "Why are you using Google Translate? If you are not able to contribute in English, then you should instead consider contributing to a Wikipedia project in a language that you are able to contribute in."
• "Have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia in your native language instead? They almost certainly need new contributors more than the English Wikipedia does."

Telling good-faith, non-native contributors to leave the English Wikipedia and "go write in their native language" is cultural gatekeeping and fundamentally contradicts the international spirit of this project. Ironically, Gurkubondinn's own user page indicates that they are an Icelandic editor living in Germany, and English is not their native language either, making this double standard even more jarring.

Looking at Gurkubondinn's talk page history, this appears to be a chronic pattern of behavior. As seen in the active thread at the top of this noticeboard (User:The-Pope removing LLMPRODs and AI-generated tags), this user's extreme AI paranoia has turned into active harassment of the community. They have subjected numerous innocent users, including veteran contributors with 12 and 20 years of experience, to stressful noticeboard threads and false AI accusations simply for utilizing basic translation tools (as seen in recent cases involving User talk:American1254, User talk:AustrianNewWave, User talk:JyotiTheLightHouse, and User talk:DesiMTatro).

I request that administrators review Gurkubondinn's conduct and instruct them to refrain from using hostile, xenophobic rhetoric against non-native English editors who are attempting to contribute in good faith.

Stephen Garold (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The bullet points are not overtly hostile comments. The full context of one of them is It isn't my native language either, that isn't a requirement. But you must be able to contribute in English if you want to contribute to the English Wikipedia project. Have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia in your native language instead? They almost certainly need new contributors more than the English Wikipedia does. - which isn't very consistent with the interpretation you give here.

The other text you put into quotes ("go write in their native language") is not an actual quotation.

On the other hand, I think that Gurkubondinn's concerns about AI generated content are warrented, considering that this very report looks AI-generated. MrOllie (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I am a human being writing this, and English is my second language, which is exactly why this issue is personal to me.

Yes, I apologize for the formatting if "go write in their native language" looked like a direct quotation instead of a summary of the sentiment. However, the rhetoric is still clear, like, this is gatekeeping, and as other editors have noted in the active thread above, there is a clear pattern of targeted hostility towards others here.

The situation has reached an absurdity. Because of this paranoia, human contributions (no matter how much effort was put into researching them) are deleted and labeled as "LLM slop" instead of being improved. The fact that my own report about this paranoia is now being dismissed as "looking AI-generated" exactly shows the problem I am bringing to your attention.

I don't expect exceptions for bad machine translations, but I do expect editors who have more rights to follow WP:BITE instead of turning every interaction with a non-native speaker into a hostile interrogation. Stephen Garold (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

These days machine translations apps use LLMs internally, so unfortunately if you are depending on computer translation you are producing 'LLM slop'. We would rather communicate with you directly - even if your grammar is not perfect - than work through a chatbot. MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I would point out that Gurkubondinn - as is clear on his User page - is not a native English speaker, and as you have pointed, English will be at least his second or later language. The translation exclusion of WP:NOLLM strictly speaking for inter-language wiki translations where the editor is competent in both languages. Gurkubondinn does a huge amount of work protecting the project from a veritable tidal wave of AI rubbish, and frankly deserves a medal, certainly not what is projected above, when he is essentially correct. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Gurkubondinn can certainly be brusque at times, but I don't think that accusations of xenophobia or cultural gatekeeping are really fair. As an English-language version of Wikipedia, we are obliged to maintain at least some adherence to the norms of language in articles, and perhaps more importantly, in our use of sources. And it is a simple demonstrable fact that translation tools (whether using LLMs or not) are unreliable - quite simply, if a contributor can't read and write in the native language of an encyclopaedia, but have to rely on such tools, an essential part of the article production process is being handed over to a machine. If our readers wish to read machine translations, they have plenty of opportunity to do so via browsers etc, but we shouldn't be compromising core principles that distinguish even sometimes-flawed human-authored text from slop. Yes, this puts non-English speakers at a disadvantage if they wish to contribute, but the alternative is likely to be worse in the long-term. We have to put readers, verifiability (which requires being able to read and compare sources without machine assistance) and similar policies first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Stephen Garrold’s initial edit to the Nelories page was flagged for including markdown formatting, so Gurkubondinn’s judgement was not purely out of the blue. See Special:AbuseLog/45280231. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

To expand on this: Google Translate is now, by default, using Gemini (an LLM), which often inserts markdown formatting—this may be what happened here—and also has a tendency to go much further than correcting grammar or spelling, instead changing the wording of the original text. Users often don’t realise any of this, making it even more insidious and causing an unpleasant shock when someone points it out, but that doesn’t make it untrue. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know, that Google Translate is Gemini-based for now, so why it triggered the filter logs.

I am a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to sorting data and code (which I learned from editing on Fandom Wiki). Since you mentioned you prefer direct communication even with imperfect grammar, I will stop running my text through translation tools to avoid this "machine-generated" look.

I will just work on the Nelories article manually in my sandbox. I consider this misunderstanding resolved. Stephen Garold (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really super annoying that they just forced the LLM in there and no one really knows about it! Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I consider this misunderstanding resolved.

Support boomerang formal warning on OP for personal attacks and WP:Casting aspersions. Fermiboson (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

That seems a little over the top. I'd say we should best put this down to misunderstandings that are a direct consequence of the difficulties in communication inherent in an encyclopaedia that gets promoted as 'anyone can edit' in circumstances where it really isn't that simple. The system as it stands encourages those who don't really have the specific language skills they need to jump straight in to article editing, and actively encourages this sort of conflict. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

If someone decided to start calling another editor xenophobic and racist in the middle of a content dispute, we would consider that a textbook CIVIL and ASPERSIONS violation. Why is it any different for AI investigations? Fermiboson (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

It's different because the system actively encourages this sort of conflict, and it really has little to do with LLM use specifically. Feel free to advocate sweeping this under the carpet if you like, but don't expect to convince me that I'm wrong. Contributors are real people. Newcomers in particular often find what they thought was going to be a welcoming experience rapidly going downhill. We all react to this in our own ways. Few are really optimal. And as long as we aren't prepared to stop offering things to 'anyone' that we can't deliver, cutting a little slack once in a while would be no bad thing. Personally, I'd like to have seen a bit more of an apology for the 'xenophobia' comments from Stephen Garold, but I really don't see who gains from escalation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if using terms like "xenophobic" felt like a personal attack. That wasn't my goal, I was just stressed by the situation. Thank you all for explaining, how all of those mechanics behind the translation filters. I am working on the draft in my sandbox now. Stephen Garold (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Stephen GaroldI don't know if this is any consolation but there is a somewhat inbred passive-aggressive approach that may get to new editors. I remember being annoyed about it at around the 3 month mark. It's just part of the territory where warnings are dished out, legitimately. Don't read too much into the tone, it's the way it is. There is WP:BITEY but some lines are finely laid. ChrysGalley (talk) ChrysGalley (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if using terms like "xenophobic" felt like a personal attack. "I'm sorry you felt that way" isn't an apology.

This ANI report was also definitely AI generated. Disruptive gatekeeping and systemic violations of WP:BITE are exactly the kind of trumped-up charges that LLMs love to dish out, and that newcomers realistically would have no business coming up with themselves. (In what way can one editor's actions be "systemic" anyway?) Pangram gives it 86% AI-generated; funny enough the only part it flags as human-generated are the parts in quotations that were written by Gurkubondinn. GPTZero gives it 99% chance of being "human written and AI polished".

This is also full of assumptions of bad faith and aspersions. Telling good-faith, non-native contributors to leave the English Wikipedia and "go write in their native language"...extreme AI paranoia...active harassment of the community...using hostile, xenophobic rhetoric...clear pattern of targeted hostility...turning every interaction with a non-native speaker into a hostile interrogation.

WP:CIVIL goes two ways, you don't get to drop a bunch of loaded allegations on an editor who was acting in perfectly good faith and then say oops, didn't realise that the translation tool I was using was AI. Guess that solves that! and then leave. Maybe say sorry to the person who you just accused of being a paranoid, hostile xenophobe for no reason? Athanelar (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I get it's a sensitive topic (as w any WP:CIR issue), but tbh idk of a nicer/kinder way of saying that than what Gurku said. A lot of the cases that end up at AINB are about people that use LLMs because they're not proficient enough in English to contribute to enwiki without them (sometimes not capable of understanding what they're publishing). Re the broader Wikimedia movement, we need to be growing smaller wikis, and enwiki needs to be directing such people to edit wikis in their native languages where they can make constructive contributions (something we've been failing miserably on). But if such efforts are typically perceived as personal attacks then what are we supposed to do Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

maybe we could make a page that gives advice about editing for people who are learning the language? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm getting really tired of people pointing out instances of people getting upset at their AI-generated edits being spotted if this is some kind of epic checkmate, and not the same defensive reaction that almost everyone uses AI has. Running down the list:

• American1254: Markdown in Special:Diff/1324357934, as well as what appears to be a tacit confirmation of AI use in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1369069242 (Remove AI generated content.)
• AustrianNewWave: Unambiguously was using AI per Special:AbuseLog/44578689, and they are currently blocked for it
• JyotiTheLightHouse: Canned user page, markdown formatted edits, etc
• DesiMTatro: Various unencyclopedic edits with markdown formatting that they edit warred in repeatedly -- oh yes, and they also appeared to have threatened to get people arrested (i'm very tight with my local chief of police. I've known him for sixteen years, and they'll do anything to help me out agains idiots and stupid people like you.), which I would certainly call "hostile rhetoric," but for some reason you do not seem to be bothered by

Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Gnomingstuff, what do you make of Kelvyn Hallifax? Drmies (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I did the page, based on old german version of it, but added more newly sources Stephen Garold (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/45298881 (yesterday) had WP:STARTSPAN: [cite: 1, 3, 4] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I apologize again for using Google Translate again, when I promised not to use it, no excuses. I feel overwhelmed and psychically tired because this happens in public, Because I'm very afraid of getting banned in the future and I have psychological problems with it. Stephen Garold (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anything uncivil about these comments. Gurkubondin is doing this in about as good of a way as can be expected; to instead of telling someone they are unwanted, tell them they are likely more wanted and could do more good somewhere else. That is a very intentional effort to avoid the wholly unpleasant and disheartening approach that only caring about the outcome for EnWiki would entail (just telling someone they lack the English competency necessary to edit) in favour of one that also cares about the outcome for the person asked to consider leaving (by pointing them towards a place where they can hopefully thrive).

I defer to Gnomingstuff for Gurkubondin's allegations of LLM-use being correct as they know this better than almost anyone.

I don't think this complaint was made in bad faith, as someone could of course still take offense to the comments and even plausibly misinterpret them as having an uncivil intent, so I don't think a boomerang for aspersions is warranted (other than maybe a warning). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hostile behavior by User:Killerdani12

I am bringing to the administrators' attention the behavior of User:Killerdani12 regarding their hostile approach toward other editors.

In this diff , on an article related to the sensitive Balkan area, they used the edit summary to cast ethnic and political insults, writing: "to you serbian natuonalists stop trying to change the history", violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I kindly request that administrators review this user's behavior, as this kind of conduct should not be tolerated. FranéRogoz (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that citing 'bolshevik.org/Leaflets' should be tolerated either, though. Infoboxes are supposed to summarise readily verifiable fact, not partisan opinions. If this wasn't motivated by nationalism, it certainly could be read that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Fair point about the source, and we can definitely discuss that on the article talk page. However, I opened this thread purely because of the hostile tone and national labeling in the edit summary, which shouldn't happen regardless of the content dispute. FranéRogoz (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Killerdani12 (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Killerdani12: You just posted a reply with no words in it. I'm assuming this was an accident. Can you please try again to reply? QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 19:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi I want to clarify that I did not intend to be rude or insulting or hostile towards anyone my intention was to express my concern that the content of the Wikipedia article was being repeatedly changed in a way that I believed did not accurately reflect the result in the Wikipedia article i admit that my edit summary was poorly worded. But that was not my intention to attack anyone or insult someone and I apologise for the wording. I only wanned to make sure that the Wikipedia articles result would not be repeatedly changed and again i apologie if i accidentally made someone feel attacked with my words that was not intended. Killerdani12 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Temp. ban on a user ended and they have continued to disrupt articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The user SardarEditer was recently temp. banned for a week for disruption and sockpuppetry. Their temp. ban has ended and they have gone right ahead and continued to disrupt articles. Original ban:

Recent examples from today:

1) White-washing articles:

2) Unexplained removal of content: ;

I have attempted to start discussions on their talk-page (explaining why their edits are reverted, such as for grammatical errors, unsourced additions, and removal of sourced content) but they have ignored them and continue to disrupt articles after their ban has ended. They do not engage and remain disruptive. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Permanently block WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMMUNICATION grapesurgeon (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• A user 3 weeks old, 51 edits, and already a 1 week block that didn't change behavior? Indeffed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vmzp85 - persistent little issues with zero communication

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Vmzp85 (talk · contribs) is now on his fourth (yes really) ANI report for the same repeated issues. Most recently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1206#h-Vmzp85-20251031162500. Following that, they were blocked for three months by @Cullen. However in the time since, it’s as if nothing has changed. They are still systematically blanking their talk page and not responding to a single message, and are still causing issues. They reached a level 4 warning for disruptive editing for repeatedly and persistently making useless cosmetic edits, and most recently they’ve been making unsourced edits. Given their persistent lack of communication, and their history, I think it’s clear they’re WP:NOTHERE. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Permanently block WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMMUNICATION grapesurgeon (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Two previous blocks (1 week and 3 months) have not corrected this editor's behavior. I think it's time for an indefinite block, until he can convince an admin that he will change his approach to editing. (There was a third block for edit-warring but it was 2017.) Schazjmd (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yet more unsourced/badly-sourced aviation editing? The seems to be an endemic problem, and not one that gets solved by blocks, apparently. Maybe Wikipedia needs to start systematically clamping down on the excessive detail/fancruft that leads to these issues - much of it really doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Air travel isn't some new and exotic form of transport, and the endless scraping of questionable sources (if that) for levels of detail that no broad-scope secondary source really gives a damn about leads to exactly this problem. Not that blocking Vmzp25 wouldn't be a good idea too, from the look of it. Regardless of the topic, going back to exactly the same stubborn uncommunicative behaviour after three escalating blocks isn't going to be acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Danners430, just a reminder that I am Cullen328. User:Cullen has not edited since 2009. Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Bracamonte adding unsourced information after final warning

Bracamonte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Young Africans S.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User appears to be well-meaning, but has been given multiple recent warnings, including a final warning, for adding unsourced content. They have been warned about the very same issue since 2008 on their talk page. They appear not to engage with any discussion, and simply continue to ignore the requirement to source changes. One example is this page, where the squad section has been tagged as unsourced since February. In spite of a final warning earlier in the day, they continued with the same disruptive editing, adding content without a source. Perhaps a temporary block will nudge them towards the standards expected. Greenman (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years and isn't responding on talk pages? I feel like that is a bare minimum bar for any user to meet. Perhaps a block shouldn't be issued immediately (if they do discuss on the ANI) but that said if they continue to ignore you and the ANI then perhaps some sort of response is certainly warranted. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Not just unsourced but also unexplained. We can't have this. I blocked for a month; perhaps that will prompt them to make their first-ever edit on their own talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive editing from Pats322

Pats322 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been completely destroying articles for who knows how long by changing them to consist of stubby paragraphs (WP:PROSELINE) and labelling it as improvements. For example, this is what Avicii looked like before they edited it, and this is what it looked like after. Going through their contributions shows this across hundreds of articles. I don't know how long they've been doing this but it's extremely disruptive and they need to be blocked from mainspace. NRP (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Another example: before and after. NRP (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Drive-by reply: I have formatted your examples as diffs so that editors can easily see the exact edits Pats has made.

Edits to Avicii

Edits to Norse Atlantic Airways

Thanks. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 04:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

This is certainly unusual. While not a clear violation of any policy or guideline that I can think of, this is clearly damaging to the encyclopedia.

Looking at Pats332's talk page they have been informed that this is unwanted before, in addition to a lot of other things, but communication has clearly been an issue. A first step to improving communication would be for Pats332 to explain why they are changing the structure of articles in this way, and say if they will stop now that they have been informed it is unwanted. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Disagree, and I reverted User:NRP. There were in fact edit summaries explaining what they did. I note that the version NRP reverted to had "at the age of sixteen years" in the very first sentence of the second paragraph, and this was supposed to be a GA? And on further review, I'll point to the first rule of ANI: "Consider other means of dispute resolution first". NRP has tried no other means--no communication with the editor, not on their talk page or on the article talk page, and I'll stop before I say something mean. OK: "User has been completely destroying articles" is really an unacceptable personal attack and a violation of AGF. NRP, consider this a warning. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:~2026-50172-80

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This TA has been removing the Brazilian pride flag, because it apparently is illegal in Brazil according to Brazilian law. They have now moved on to making legal threats on my talk page, see diff: [1]. I've not given them a NLT warning, as I think this is beyond my capabilities now, reading their message on my talk. LightlySeared (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

it was never meant as a thread, but as an information on legal procedures & actions only. Sorry, but you seem to disrespect legal issues.

Best regards ~2026-50172-80 (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

It is also illegal in North Korea to take photos of the Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il statues, yet, we have those.

Mansu Hill Grand Monument

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 10:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Anyway the regime in Pyong Yang does not allow any access to wikipedia, therefore it's not intersting, what they allow, and what not.

In Brasil, the TSF uses to block the site for access from Brazil, if any contents that is illegal is to be found.

It's an advice, nobody has to act but therefore: please then, do not cry about any consequences, please.

I advised that there is illegal contents by Brazilian law, that's all. Please do not keep me legal for Brazilian law.

~2026-50172-80 (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

If Brazil and North Korea want to block access to stuff that offends them, then who are we to stop them? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 10:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Said user has also posted a similar message to User:TobyKohlhagen as can be seen here. (Diff/1378168593) Some sort of intervention is recommended. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

Ñothing is recommended, User:Super Goku V, I did not thread anybody. But your community seems to be too scratchy if it turns on yourself but you seem to be much less sensibility about 200 million Brazilians. You hurt our sensibility a lot, please avoid hurting anybody, please.

Regards

~2026-50172-80 (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED Kaotac (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I disagree given "Hello Toby (...) please conform to Brazilian law" & "Please keep in mind: not playing around, please, you are doing illegal actions" but will leave this to others. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

From reading this, a ban is in order so they will no longer have to read our offensive articles. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Note as well Wikipedia is not based in Brazil, and as such is not subject to Brazilian law. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked the TA. There is much posturing that doesn't IMO quite add up to legal threats, but saying a "federal judge has been informed" and "no [something] will be tolerated" is what swung it for me; what are they, the law enforcement? It was also starting to veer into personal attacks/insults. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

"A federal judge has been informed" is absolutely a legal threat. Good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Can Brazilian judges bring charges? Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding unsourced info including original research, disruptive edits, personal attacks and uncivility and uncooperatility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fluentlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ~2026-52830-17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The accounts Fluentlol and the temporary account listed are both controlled by the same user, because apparent from the style as from the word "deadliest" which this user uses a lot in their edits and also admitted by Fluentlol. This user consistently adds unsourced info or info that's not supported by the source cited. That also includes original research (also violating NPOV), making disruptive edits that include unexplained removals, personal attacks and overall being uncivil and completely uncooperative about the issue. They also mark some edits as minor when they are not and format a ref wrongly, also removing refs, adding refs that don't support the info, and also deliberately vandalizes in at least one case. They also wrongly use warning templates. This is the second ANI thread that reports this user (see first), the user has still continued their violations since. Now, I'm going to list their violative edits by subject so it's eaiser to see the issue:

• Addition of unsourced info or info not supported by citations that also includes original research, and adding refs that don't support the claim: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (also marked as a minor edit when it wasn't), 12, 13 (also removed some refs), 14 (ref didn't support their previously added unsourced claim), 15, 16 (ref didn't support their previously added unsourced claim), 17, 18, 19, 20 (also violating NPOV).
• Vandalizing: 21.
• Making personal attacks and being uncivil that includes threating people, falsely warning them both with templates and without in their talk pages, therefore being uncooperative: 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.
• Making disruptive edits, including making formatting errors, claiming to be a recent changes reviewer when they're not, making weird formatting, making unexplained content removals, making other NPOV violations other than listed above: 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36.

The user has been continuing despite warnings, and has said that I was wikihounding them when I wasn't. Tracking someone's edits in good faith isn't wikihounding according to the policy, but I still do expect them to continue accusing me of wikihounding here. This is an urgent issue since the editor refuses to stop. I'm bringing this here because there seems to be no other way of solving this issue. All comments are appreciated here. Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I do believe the temporary account edit was not done with the intention of editing while being logged out. Raskuly 🐰 12:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I know, but the issue is that the edit was still and original research and unsourced. If there is a thing you would like to say about their unsourced edits, I'd greatly appreciate it. Again, thanks. Jako96 (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it clear that I believed the usage of the temporary account was an accident. I reverted the edit that was made on the account because it was another improperly sourced claim. Fluentlol wrote that the shooting was Birmingham's deadliest, despite the source used saying that it was the "worst" and there being two other equally deadly shootings in the city earlier that year. This of course did not account for other potentially older and deadlier incidents since, again, the cited article made no such claim. It does feel as if Fluentlol's edits have to be monitored to see if they meet WP standard, with some of their edits being acceptable and others not, like the Birmingham edits.

Fluentlol needs to understand that this is not an acceptable arrangement, and their contributions must always reflect the sources they are using. We all make mistakes, but this has been a consistent and ongoing issue that has improved only minimally. Raskuly 🐰 12:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with and appreciate your reply here. This issue is urgent and continuing non-stop. I'd say at least a temporary block with a length of 24 hours is needed, but ideally 72 hours. Jako96 (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

That edit was sourced by al.com. I just created an entire new page at 2020 Valhermoso Springs, Alabama shooting Fluentlol (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The "deadliest in Birmingham" edit? It was not sourced properly, as you wrote something entirely different than what the source said. I'm not sure what the Valhermoso Springs article has to do with it. Raskuly 🐰 13:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Ellaborate. Fluentlol (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

You wrote that that shooting in Birmingham was the "deadliest mass shooting in Birmingham's history", despite the source you added only saying it was "worst mass shooting in the city’s history". What it means by "worst" is unclear, but assuming it meant deadliest was improper. By using this source to assert that the attack was the deadliest mass shooting in Birmingham's history, you were adding claims unsupported by the source to the article. I also gave you examples that showed that it is not the deadliest mass shooting in Birmingham's history.

You later wrote that it was "one of the deadliest mass shootings in Alabama's history", but the source you used only said that it was "among Alabama’s deadliest in recent history", and was about a drive-by shooting that happened in the city earlier that year. I reverted this edit because there were several examples of equally deadly or even deadlier mass shootings in Alabama's history that I could easily find, and it was just a completely unnecessary point to make in the article.

Finally, my last revert on that article to you was when you claimed that "The suspects fired in excess of 100 rounds according to police", despite the only source mentioning 100 rounds only said that "Police said about 100 shell casings were recovered at the scene of Saturday's shooting". Similarly to the first edit, you made a claim that was not supported by sources. Raskuly 🐰 13:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

You make a fair point, but try not to engage in harassment or supporting the other user's repetitive wiki-hounding. See Wikipedia:Harassment Fluentlol (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I've never harassed you or attempted to support another user's wiki-hounding. For the record, I do not approve of Jako96's usage of the warning template on your talk page, but this will hopefully get sorted out here on this thread. There should be no more excessive warning templates and there should be no more improperly/unsourced edits. Every interaction with you I've had, I've tried to remain as respectful as possible. If you're saying I've engaged in wiki-hounding because I reverted the edits to the Birmingham article, that is far from wiki-hounding. The Birmingham article is in my watchlist, and so once I saw activity there I reviewed it and found that it was an improperly sourced claim, so I removed it. Raskuly 🐰 13:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I've discontinued the unsourced edits. he is currently vandalizing the two pages that i've written Geneva County massacre and 2020 Valhermoso Springs shooting and claiming that they are unsourced when the sources are heavy. That constitutes vandalism. Fluentlol (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Without taking sides here, I feel there is something that needs mentioning - Jako96 has left no less than 14 level 4 warnings on Fluentlol’s user talk in the last week, with some lesser warnings and notices scattered in between. Without commenting on the merit of these warnings, I feel like this insane quantity of warnings is straying very close to Wikihounding, if not crossing the boundary. At the very least, there needs to be a boomerang trout here. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Finally, thank you. He’s literally been doing it for weeks as well as reverting sourced edits whilst claiming they’re unsourced. Fluentlol (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Not having seen the latter, nobody can really comment on it. Do you have some diffs? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean diffs of my talk page? I can certainly give you some. I’ve had to clear a lot of warnings off of it in the past two weeks. Fluentlol (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I posted all the level 4 warnings that Jako posted on your talk page, but feel free. I meant more about your second complaint of sourced content being reverted. Given Jako is stating that it may be sourced but still has issues, it would be good to have both sides. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Well he didnt revert this one, Raskuly reverted it in good faith, but he issued a false warning for it in the mountain of warnings at the very bottom here claiming personal research when it’s sourced by the largest news cite in the state. Fluentlol (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't "false". Your cited source didn't support your claim when it should've according to Wikipedia rules. Jako96 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

First, thanks for your answer. The hounding policy says this :"Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia... Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor."

Therefore, this is objectively not hounding if you think I made these in good faith and not for revenge or something like that. But if you think otherwise, that I'm in bad faith, that's also okay. Maybe here my only mistake is that I should've made a longer non-template warning explaining things more thoroughly. Jako96 (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m going to remind you how many warnings you’ve spammed on my talk page using the nuvola icon stop sign. Not to mention following me through my edit history just to revert my edits on unrelated pages. Fluentlol (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

No, not just to "revert" your edits. I only reverted your violative edits, for example the unsourced ones, not others. When it comes to you saying "unrelated pages", I do not understand. Jako96 (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, if you have anymore suggestions for this case, I'd appreciate just in case. Again, thanks. Jako96 (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

A small clarification, these warnings are that much because they kept continuting their violative edits again and again. Jako96 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

This user has continued their harassment on my talk page as well as reverred several constructive edits and engaged in edit wars. I am in favor of a block of this user. Fluentlol (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

You seem not to be able to understand that "fixing violations of Wikipedia policy" is not considered harassment here, as I quoted from the official policy page above. Jako96 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Im reminding you that you have just butchered all of my edits at Geneva County massacre and claimed they were unsourced; this has ruined the entire timeline section of the page, the infobox, and the layout. I had to use twinkle to revert your unconstructive edits. Fluentlol (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the part that is at least unsourced and probably original research. You say read references, but it seems like you didn't read them yourself. The source doesn't say "deadliest in Alabama's history". Jako96 (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Its all sourced i actually care about that article a lot i would never use unsourced information in it and multiple sources say that Fluentlol (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

They say deadly, not deadliest. I'm talking about the sources YOU cited. Jako96 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

At 10:41 UTC, 3 October, Jako96 leaves a notice of this AN/I discussion on Fluentlol's talk page. At 11:51 UTC, 3 October, Jako96 leaves a warning template about not using edit summaries on Fluentlol's talk page. When you've already started an AN/I thread about someone, which you can use to highlight issues with their editing, it's hard to imagine why anyone would think it's a good idea to return to their talk page one hour and ten minutes later to leave another big ol' template, especially when it's not even about a specific edit but a general "habit". This is not a comment agreeing or disagreeing with Jako96's complaints about Fluentlol's editing, but a cursory glance makes me think that Danners430's suggestion of Wikihounding has merit. Even if someone is (hypothetically) a terrible editor who needs to be indefinitely blocked from the project, it's still not okay to engage in behaviour intended to make them feel irritated or intimidated. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes and regardless I literally wrote 2020 Valhermoso Springs shooting and Geneva County massacre with sourced neutral facts. He should not be touching those pages. Fluentlol (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Those warnings are about specific edits, they have been continuing non-stop. I'm not doing this to irritate them, but they need to learn that they shouldn't make such edits. Jako96 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I've observed sourced claim reversion here and borderline vandalism here. Fluentlol (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The source just says "Morgan County authorities still call this the worst crime in the county’s history". Is it fair as a reader to think that probably means that it is the "deadliest mass shooting in Morgan County's history"? Yeah, but as an editor you can't make that claim because the article does not say that outright. As for the second edit, that is a problematic and destructive revert. There is a lot of information to look through in that edit (I need time to see if all of it was improperly reverted), but a few I see that definitely should not have been changed was the removal of the word "massacre" in the title and the changing of the time zone. Jako96 should have heeded WP:REVONLY in that revert at the very least. Raskuly 🐰 14:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did that later. Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Its technically the deadliest shooting in Alabama since the 2009 murder spree Fluentlol (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

If they call it the worst, then I'd say that's not that big of an issue, but I would still change the "deadliest" with "worst". Jako96 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

in mass shootings with the terminology deadliest and worst are interchangable words for largest death toll it isnt objective its just the most people lay dead + injuries Fluentlol (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I see this specific case is quite subjective. Kinda agree. Jako96 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that it is interchangeable. Worst is undefined and could mean just deaths, deaths and injuries, or something even more subjective. Raskuly 🐰 20:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

when people say sandy hook is the worst school shooting in conneticut do you think they mean injuries Fluentlol (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I, myself also don't agree with it, so I support what you said but do note that it could be fairly somewhat subjective. @The Bushranger, would it be a big problem if I change "deadliest" to "worst" (shortly) after the lock on the article expires? And, I won't rerevert after a revert. IMO this change would be better since it is more consensual. Jako96 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Id say we’ve found a fair consensus Fluentlol (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Admins do not have special authority over article content. If the two of you agree, that is enough to change it when the protection expires. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I've also thought like this, this is good. Thanks! Jako96 (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I again, removed "deadliest" and this time replaced it with "largest" as said in the source in 2020 Valhermoso Springs shooting. @Fluentlol, in my opinion, it would be better if you'd just say us what the source itself says, at least when asked by other editors. For example, when being said that "deadliest" is not in the source and why would it be added, you keep replying with basically an answer such as "no, it's in the source".

This starts serious misunderstandings, like you made a whole different thing up (when you didn't). In these two cases, the sources say "worst" and "largest", not "deadliest". If you'd just say that, all these discussions would be much, much shorter and maybe I wouldn't even take this to ANI in the first place. Jako96 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

So why has it taken fourteen level 4 warnings to bring them to ANI? They’re called final warnings for a reason. I would have expected 2 final warnings before ANI, maybe 3… but FOURTEEN in the space of a WEEK? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

They had continued their edits. Are you saying that I shouldn't have warned them about each edit they continued, or do you have a better suggestion? Jako96 (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Just leave me alone. You're resorting to reverting sourced edits that are actually constructive and destroying pages Fluentlol (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

No, you were also reverted and warned from multiple editors for this. Stop. Jako96 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, know that I'd seriously value your suggestion if you give me one, and your criticism here won't be helpful to me unless you say a better way of solving issues with people who are past the final warning. Although I could still look for better options myself. Jako96 (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I already told you - I’d have expected an ANI thread after maybe 2 final warnings, 3 max Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I see it now, thank you. See my reply below. Jako96 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that I shouldn't have warned them about each edit they continued Yes, actually. or do you have a better suggestion? Once they have received one level four warning and continue with problematic behavior, you bring them to ANI or AIV, not "here's another warning, hehe!". Jako96, speaking frankly, your behavior here on ANI and elsewhere has been eyebrow-raising for some time and I would strongly suggest you take a step back from (as you likely see it) defending the Wiki as you are doing more harm than good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I already expected your reply, and thanks for it. I'll try and make a report quicker and with less warnings next time. My point was that no admin had commented on the first ANI thread (except from the reported, who was an admin), and no action was taken with the user continuing, maybe because the disruption was wayyyyy less. This time I thought that maybe if I collected more evidence, that'd be a better try.

But, now that you guys've said it, I'll report disrupters MUCH quicker with only one final warning, and normally won't keep warning editors unless there have been like some long time since they were last final warned, one month for example. Now, is there a thing that you would like to say about Fluentlol's edits? I would also appreciate your thoughts about that editor, whether you'd like to share them or not. Jako96 (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I didnt disrupt anything, you vandalized the pages i wrote. Teverting sourced edits whilst claiming they are uncensored constitutes vandalism. Everything you reverted in Geneva County massacre was explicitly stated in sources in the References tab. Fluentlol (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Teverting sourced edits whilst claiming they are uncensored constitutes vandalism. I assume you mean 'claiming they are unsourced', and no it does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Well he reverted the entire article to an older revision and made it inaccurate. that constitutes self-justified vandalism Fluentlol (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

No, it does not, and the next time you refer to things that are not vandalism as vandalism you will be blocked as continued unfounded accusations of vandalism are considered personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

FYI, they're now blocked indefinitely because of sockpuppetry, they still did continue the same personal attacks on their sock account before the block btw, see 1 and 2. I'm saying this to you so you can remember these in case they would be unblocked. Jako96 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it's not entirely reasonless that I did this by the way, for your information. Some ANI threads when even being the second one about a single editor, get no replies. I thought if I had enough evidence, maybe that way we could get enough discussion. And here we are, eh? :) But I still agree not to do that again. Jako96 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

They're still continuing the vandalise. Jako96 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

reverted legitimate single warning removal without consensus Fluentlol (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The above goes for you too, Jako96: any edit that can possibly be construed as being in good faith is not vandalism, and continuing to describe things that are not vandalism as vandalism after being informed they are not vandalism is considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I actually did when saying that and do know that any good faith edit is not a vandalism, and I also thought I would get opposed from users like you (Which's okay and quite understandable!). I really disagree. I don't think their latest three edits to my talk page were in good faith. Jako96 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Continuing on from Danners430's comments and my comment earlier:

Jako96 has reported Fluentlol at AIV at 15:44 UTC for vandalising after a final warning, seemingly with three examples. The second two seems to be Fluentlol posting templates on Jako96's talk page as of recently, but the first of the three examples is from back in August, which was reverted back in August. This August example looks egregious and makes me thoroughly unimpressed with and lacking sympathy for Fluentlol (it's arguably enough for an indefinite block, in the eyes of some editors), but why is it being reported now? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

its not vandalism its in good faith Fluentlol (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

If you're referring to the August example, I don't see how performing a page move to change the word "shooting" to "cocks" in an article title could possibly be in good faith. Please don't take me criticising Jako96's way of going about warnings and reports to be an endorsement of your editing. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I was trying to make fun of the perpetrator and not give him any infamy. Obviously thats vandalism but i wasnt taking the wiki seriously back then. Like i said using resolved arguments form August is absolutely a weak link Fluentlol (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

also the august example was obviously bad but that was before I took editing seriously and should not be used if your pulling things from months ago your out of reasons Fluentlol (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Users may remove anything from their talk pages, with the sole exception of declined unblock requests for an active block, for any reason. Reverting that removal is disruptive and can be considered harassment. Speaking frankly given all of the above I'm struggling with finding reasons not to block you. I have locked Geneva County massacre for 24 hours. I would strongly suggest both of you walk away from that article for a time; if the two of you resume going at it when protection expires there's an excellent chance you'll both wind up blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, i wasnt aware of the rule that reverting that constitutes harassment, as he himself issued a warning for the same Fluentlol (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Which one reason you are both on the thinnest of ice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, seriously. I appreciate the time. Good thing you locked that article. It's also simply not true that I issued a warning for the same, that warning said "or", I used it for that they caused a format issue, and I thought they changed my comment in their talk page, the warning was because of that. So, I don't consider that one to be a reason that we both are on the thinnest of ice. Jako96 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

This comment of you is also kinda weird as this is like... the third time I said to you that I didn't do that. That warning says "remove or change" because of your this edit. I thought for a second that you considerably changed my comment. Was I wrong? Yes, and I adressed the issue with Paradoctor in your talk page, and I agree that I should've not warned you there like that, as it wasn't clear, and an explanation about that there was a format issue would be a lot better. I do apologize from you ONLY for that matter. But, I (genuinely) think you should really pay a little more attention to what people say. Jako96 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I just want to add that this user has moved Xerox murders to a different title three times since a requested move discussion was closed on September 18; see Special:Diff/1376074855, Special:Diff/1376098708, and Special:Diff/1378534514. It's apparent by now that this editor is not going to voluntary stop moving this page against consensus, so I respectfully ask that they be involuntarily stopped by appropriate means. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

At this time now, I'm not saying they should be blocked or not, but your observations are unfortunately quite correct. Jako96 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Fluentlol and their new sock Randompagepatroller have been indefinitely blocked because of sockpuppetry. Jako96 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Soetermans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Soetermans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is being deliberately bullying and nasty and uncivil to a new user who is in mourning. Soetermans is utterly devoid of remorse and, based on a look at their user page, regularly engages in this kind of behaviour using belligerent and uncivil language.

Barkscorpion2281 (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is an example of one such incident from their talk page

"

What the flying fuck are you talking about? Knock that shit off is goddamn vulgar language, not a personal attack. I've reverted you three times, you hit 4 just now. And again, use the goddamn motherfucking shit ass talk page of the article, not my *&#£!?! talk page. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

" ~2026-53144-26 (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Please do mention you edited as User talk:~2026-52220-60 and User talk:~2026-53144-26 and made personal attacks, including the wonderfully heartfelt "I wish your children luck in being raised by an emotionally bereft nasty piece of work like you". If you are going to randomly quote me, use it in full. Leaving out "If it isn't clear, the use of profanity was in jest. Use the talk page to discuss an article, not a user's talk page, please" is in poor taste. Watch out for that boomerang, buddy. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Another example of deliberately antagonistic language in this very post. It is clear that Soetermans specialises in winding up other people from the safety of a keyboard. I didn't change my user name on purpose, it just happened. I wouldn't even know how to do that! Additionally, this user disrespected my deceased brother and refused to acknowledge it and also refused to acknowledge and very clear apology on my part for using what I openly admitted to being a mistaken use of the word "trolling" (which is what I initially thought this user was doing, now I think they are genuinely satisfied with their role as a bully towards new users). ~2026-53144-26 (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Bankscorpion2281, this AN/I post is your first edit. Are you the same person as ~2026-53144-26? If so, why did you switch back to TA editing before replying to this thread? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

What is TA editing? I'm just using different browsers as I'm doing various other things on my alternative browsers if that's what you mean. Nothing intended by it ~2026-53144-26 (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

If I was deliberately trying to obscure my identity for some inconceivable purpose, I'd be doing a pretty bad job of it! I'm just using Wikipedia however it's presented to me - there is no intentional deception happening here. Additionally, that's not the point in contention. ~2026-53144-26 (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

It's called WP:LOUTSOCKING, and once you have created an account, editing while logged out, as you are doing, while knowing you are logged out, is a no-no. That said, this is irrelevant, because... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• ...nobody here has covered themselves in glory. The profane talk page comment is unaccceptable even in jest, but it's from April and is clearly the TA/new user digging to throw stuff at the wall. They are - as acknowledged here - the same user as the TAs, and they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and have been indef'd, with a TA rangeblock to follow. Soetermans has exceeded 3RR on Arizona bark scorpion and has been blocked 72 hours, as this is not the first time they have broken 3RR in a dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Their edits do seem disruptive and they are not really interested in being collaborative. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfghanTsakhtan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

AfghanTsakhtan's edits on three particular pages have become rather disruptive. These pages are Bacha bazi, Second Anglo-Afghan War and First Anglo-Afghan war. Second Anglo-Afghan war is where AfghanTsakhtan is more fixated in removing the changes with sources that were discussed by editors in talk page of the article. More so, AfghanTsakhtan also tried misleading description to remove the changes, such as saying Fixed flags but the change was to remove changes from infobox that gave visibility of British dominance in the war. This is not the only time AfghanTsakhtan has made such attempt. AfghanTsakhtan's disruptive behavior is of an editor who wants to make changes as it fits best due to own national sentiments, regardless of what the fact is per sources.

Recent warning on editor talk page:

Previous warnings on editor talk page:

Discussion warning:

AfghanTsakhtan also keeps adding unsourced or unverified belligerents in infobox and when tagged with citation needed and asked for source with page numbers, AfghanTsakhtan attempts to give you a run around instead of pointing to direct evidence.

Disruptive edits list: Bacha bazi

Second Anglo-Afghan war: Consistently removing changes and sources from infobox.

First Anglo-Afghan war - Consistently removing citation tags and changing name of belligerent to unsourced name.

changing name of Belligerent that is not mentioned in sources.

using false description to remove citation tag

removing citation tags and changing name of Belligerent to unsourced name.

name change to unsourced name

There is lot more on this particular page history

AfghanTsakhtan also made comments, I wouldn't mind being banned if Wikipedia is a safe haven for people who love to abuse their powers. I wouldn't mind I would be blocked from editing if this site solely shelters people who disrupt other edits for their own benefit. AfghanTsakhtan is also fixated with flag changes on numerous Afghan related pages and I am not sure if any of them are valid changes. I feel a topic ban from Afghanistan/Afghan related pages should be applied to this editor. RangersRus (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• A topic ban from Afghanistan would be sufficient since the scope of their concerning edits is limited to Afghanistan. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Support topic ban from Afghanistan articles. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Editor has exercised the WP:RTV. While I'm not certain if it should have been granted given the existence of this ANI (which was at least before the RTV was finished), OTOH with under 2000 edits to their name it's probably not worth worrying that much about. Ultimately by making the request request they've agreed to stay away forever. And if they come back/sock it can be dealt with accordingly and reversed then. And I'm not sure the RTV will make it that much harder to detect them. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from Afghanistan, broadly construed. Yes, this editor won the race to the courthouse steps to get courtesy-vanished, but this strikes me as a bad faith request on their part. If nobody reverses the vanish (my preference), then we should have the topic ban as a safeguard for the return that I think is likely. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• It is absolutely a bad-faith request and needs to be undone. And we need to modify WP:VANISH to require that someone conducting a requested vanishing confirm it is not being done 'under a cloud' as this has been happening with increasing frequency to the point it's becoming disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  I have undone the rename as it was absolutely bad faith as @The Bushranger notes. The account has already been globally locked, and the editor will not be able to access the account as their password will already have been scrambled, but the rename part has been reversed. Mfield (Oi!) 22:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Beta Beta Beta I disagree with your closure that since account is globally locked, topic ban is no longer necessary. Sanctions are applied on editors, not accounts, and here in absence of any such topic ban nothing is deterring them if they reappear under another name. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Legal threats (All·Noble·Souls reported by InfernoHues)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• InfernoHues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (reporting editor)
• All·Noble·Souls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor appears to be making legal threats in their edit summaries on the Toubou people page. InfernoHues (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NLT. -- Whpq (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreferenced Additions to BLP (Moved From WP:AIV)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

~2026-52410-55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Disruptive - making multiple bad BLP and unsourced edits despite warnings / also an element of WP:CIR.

This incident report was made by Strongshorts (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for putting it as a reply. Strongshorts (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Nothing really to add from my AIV report which has been moved here. This is a straight up bad editor. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, who are you calling a bad editor? Strongshorts (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Not you 10mmsocket (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

A reply was added to your AIV saying it should be moved to incidents Strongshorts (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not questioning you at all. My/our beef is with the TA. They are the bad editor. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay Strongshorts (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Indefinitely p-blocked from article space. Star Mississippi 13:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Michael_Aurel bot account that human takes over?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've encountered User:Michael_Aurel on the article Makedon (mythology), where he removed some content and reworded the text so that the Macedonians went from not being Hellenes, connected to Hellen only through his sister, which in Greek eyes did not count, to being connected to Hellen. In particular he removed the sentence "The ancient genealogies were patrilineal. The primary building blocks were men, and women were the mortar.[9]" and changed "M. L. West and R. Fowler also argue that by having their mythological founders descending "not from Hellen but from daughters of Deukalion, sisters of Hellen", Hesiod implies that Macedonians, Magnetes and Graikoi were not Hellenes." to "According to Robert Fowler, the genealogy "acknowledges [the Macedonians'] affinity to the Hellenes" whilst depicting that link as oblique; he also states that the poem's author intentionally situates the Macedonians' eponym one generation below Hellen". He also removed many sources and quotes. Diff:

On closer inspection I've noticed that the account exibits is bot characteristics where sometimes a human takes the control. I think this is not allowed per WP:BOTP. Checking his edit history from 14:35, 29 September 2026 to 12:01, 30 September 2026 the bot makes many reverts, 2 to 5 per minute, most with the summary "(rv: unsourced)", using simple programming logic.

example 1: on 11:49, 30 September 2026 5 edits in 1 minute. Programming logic: From first paragraph find Langx template and remove last parameter with the summary "(rv: unsourced)"

example 2: on 07:44, 2 October 2026 5 edits in 1 minute. Programming logic: From first paragraph find Langx template and remove last parameter and after Langx remove within inclusive ref tag. SuriMuri (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC) edited 14:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@SuriMuri: did you try to discuss the matter with Michael Aurel, or did you just skip that bit and come straight here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I don’t understand. Are human editors allowed to run a bot on the same account while they are away? That way they can inflate their participation until someone warns them. SuriMuri (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean, did you actually ask this user whether what you're alleging even is the case? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I’ve notified him on his talk page that there is a discussion about him here. What else can it be when someone makes 2 to 5 edits per minute with simple programming logic? SuriMuri (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

"did you actually ask this user whether what you're alleging even is the case" is a very simple question. Even if it's a bot 100%, and especially if there's even sometimes a making the edits, there's someone whose account it is. I agree with DoubleGrazing that as it stands at this time, "account is bot where sometimes a human takes the control" sounds like merely your speculation. DMacks (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I have not asked him if this is the case. I would not call it speculation, because that implies I made it up out of thin air. I've presented my evidence so that the admins can establish whether I am correct. If I am not, they can close the case. SuriMuri (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The worst they can do is BOOMERANG you. Techie3 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Michael Aurel didn't twist anything in Makedon (mythology). SuriMuri is the one who keeps pushing cherrypicked interpretations from at least three scholars, even after being explicitly informed about it; see Talk:Makedon (mythology) § Problematic statement. Furthermore, it is not surprising for someone to make five edits in one minute, which in the linked cases above are mere reverts of unsourced additions by Markx121993. This is a waste of everyone's time. Can an admin please go and review the evidence in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HelenHIL § 25 September 2026? – Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

SuriMuri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suggested to SuriMuri that they ease off and stop laying down the law, but they've doubled down, opening a second RFC which is well on the way to a WP:AVALANCHE close again, and now claiming an established expert editor is running a bot and using "programmic logic" when all it takes is moderately skilful use of a problematic contribution history. This is an attempt to remove a disputant by attacking some unrelated editing - it's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

Since they opened an account 15 days ago, SumiMuri has been on a campaign to have our articles state directly and indirectly that ancient Macedonia and Macedonians were not Greek. This is an issue in the Macedonia naming dispute and other nationalist tensions between modern Greece and North Macedonia, giving rise to two arbitration cases WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2, now falling under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe.

They have said that The majority of my information I have acquired it from this site , a polemical blog dedicated to arguing that Macedonians were not Greek (with a side of claiming that modern Greeks are descended from people who carried out a genocide of ancient Greeks and replaced them). Much of their article editing is therefore citebombing with long snippets quoted in the refs, yet no sign that they've read the whole works or widely enough to select these works as WP:DUE, and omiting relevant adjacent text in the works cited. They argue solely from those snippets, with WP:SYNTH-breaching readings and even arguing for the use of language that has the same connotations as some words in those snippets (words that aren't even about the particular matter).

All this is wasting editors' time and effort. Please can we have an immediate admin block or agree a cban for SuriMuri? NebY (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking thru it and there definitely seems to be a campaign to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. POV pushing aggressively. SuriMuri has continually doubled down on their conduct and on that second RfC, if they double down again in this thread I'd be in support of sanctions on their editing grapesurgeon (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The orig evidence provided by SuriMuri is unconvincing of bot activity. I've made way more than 5 edits per min before. I just open up a bunch of tabs at once, go to source editor for all them, and quickly make all the changes. Also considering michael aurel modifies the edit comments very frequently the interpretation of bot editing is not convincing grapesurgeon (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Boomerang - The evidence is garbage, they mostly try and focus on dragging their nonsense here too, and I suspect that this WP:NPOV editor is going to continue to WP:BATTLEGROUND if they don't get their way. No preference as to CBAN, indef, or (grudgingly) a timed block, so long as there is consensus or an admin action that gets this editor out of this area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  What kind of inflammatory language is that? The evidence is garbage, dragging their nonsense, WP:NPOV editor is going to continue to WP:BATTLEGROUND Relax a little per Wikipedia:Civility SuriMuri (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• The edits given as evidence could easily be performed in compliance with WP:ASSISTED, or frankly even fully manually; a handful of similar edits in quick succession is hardly evidence of unauthorised bot use. Michael Aurel has made about 25,000 edits over the past five years, with fewer than 2,000 in their most productive month; that's productive for an editor working fully manually but pretty unproductive for a bot. If they are running an unauthorised bot they are being very restrained about it! Do you have any actual evidence, SuriMuri? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  I find it very difficult to believe that someone could make so many edits so quickly. If a bot were much more productive, that would be too obvious. There are legitimate reasons for my concerns. If he or she is not getting help from a bot, then I am perfectly fine with that. SuriMuri (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Several, more experienced users above have explained why it's unlikely that the user is a bot. If it is a simple find and replace, as you claim, it would be very inefficient to only make one edit per 15 seconds - you can easily make 10-30 edits in that time period. The behavior you describe, however, is very plausible for a human especially if they have opened several tabs to edit several articles. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  If this is the case, then it means I was wrong, and the case can be closed. SuriMuri (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I will not comment on the accusations against User:Michael_Aurel, an established and respected wikipedia editor, since I cannot take them seriously. I will, however, note that SuriMuri, a recently registered WP account, is not new in Wikipedia and their aggressive behavior and warring has been causing problems in several articles the past few weeks. I would simply urge an admin to take a look at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HelenHIL § 25 September 2026. Even without that, I would still suggest a tban on Balkan history or block entirely, per User:NebY's comment above. As other editors noted, their polemics, besides being disruptive, they really waste important time from editors. Piccco (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ASPERSIONs by User:Lightbulb Noob

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lightbulb Noob just accused TAs editing Draft:Tornado outbreak of May 6–7, 2026 to be Andrew5 socks with little evidence. The TA who filed the XRV report has not been found, at any level, to be an Andrew5 sock. Also, it’s common to reference ANI discussions of a user anyway, as it can be found in his talk page history. ~2026-53355-58 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. Here we go again.

1. I never said the person who filed the XRV report was an Andrew5 sock.
2. I didn't directly accuse anyone on the draft itself, I only said I have a harder time taking someone whos doing similar things as seriously because of the past experiences. However, I did report it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrew5#4 October 2026, because of the suspicious similiar behavior.
3. Also, I guess you can scan someones talk page history for that, but saying "Haven’t you learned not to remove AFC tags unless you move it to your user space? Move it to your user space or leave the tag alone." when the person taking me to ANI for it in the first place was an Andrew5 sock isn't a great look.

Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean technically, you did refer to one of their other TAs as an Andrew5 sock in this edit summary , but truth be told, I think I'd have had the same reaction given their immediate focus on you after starting to edit Wikipedia on their IP address. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tom Cotton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, the Tom Cotton page again suffered egregious vandalism very recently (two days ago, in fact) and the BLP violations in the edit history were not hidden from public view. Would someone please take care of this at their earliest convenience? Berlshire (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done thanks. Mfield (Oi!) 16:05, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pattern of disruptive and rude behavior.

Mammoos 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been trolling and borderline harassing me with constant pings and messages that demonstrate they are very clearly WP:NOTHERE.

• User has repeatedly created the page Mike Miller (bowler) using nothing but AI.
• When their 2 duplicate (now deleted) drafts (Draft:Mike Miller (bowler) & Draft:Mike Miller (bowler) 2) were declined for being 100% AI generated, the user's response on the pages was to say that they did not have time to create the page like some historian so were letting AI do it for them.
• Posted on my talk page here saying Not giving a crap about your threats as they are not the end of the world for me! Look man, I’m not a qualified historian that would sit down and really write articles like you seem to be! If you are willing to it yourself, go ahead and create an article on Mike Miller, the ten-pin bowler! How about that, huh?

Now they are lashing out at me blaming me for blocking them with posts like these:

• Fuck you! Get the fuck out asshole! User_talk:Mammoos_007#c-Mammoos_007-20261004100500-Zackmann08-20261004052700
• Hey @Zackmann08, Since you blocked the fuck out of me from creating articles until further notice, I’m nicely requesting you or someone else in the know to create an article on PBA bowler Mike Miller. Thanks, motherfucker! Talk:Bowling_form#c-Mammoos_007-20261004101400-Mammoos_007-20261003112400

Literally al most every edit they have made in the last 2 weeks has been an attempt to push this page live (note Mike Miller (bowler) is now protected as a result). User's actions and attitude go way past any assumption of good faith and show they are WP:NOTHERE. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with Zackmann08's assessment of Mammoos 007 being WP:NOTHERE, at least as far as Talk:Bowling form is concerned. It's just a question of how broad a protection is needed. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

They are explicitly unwilling to follow our rules for writing articles. They are unwilling or unable to follow our rules for collaborating with others to write articles. They appear unable to follow our rules for interacting with others in discussions about those concerns. They have a single-topic focus but involving multiple articles so far (and based on topic potentially unknown others moving forward). This time-sink is not helping build an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Support indefinite block from article space, so maybe they can apologize here before a block. @Mammoos 007, are you willing to apologize and stop this behaviour? Also, they seem to remember a block, so I think they are probably a sockpuppet. Jako96 (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The GF explanation is they are hitting a SALT situation (one specifically in response to their own actions), not remembering a previous account. DMacks (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now, then, they are probably not a sockpuppet. Jako96 (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry! Are you happy now? Mamoos 007 (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

This is clearly a pattern of behaviour; they also called Maayaaaaa a coward for reverting unsourced BLP content back on August 31. Meadowlark (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I have indefinitely partially blocked them from article space as well as from page creation. Unfortunately this won't stop them from badgering editors to create the artcle. This is a short stop before a likely indef, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 23:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Legal threat by @Wiseone449

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please find an unambiguous legal threat here at the AfC Help Desk by @Wiseone449 qcne (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Support indefinite block. Jako96 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Subsequent to this initial report and ANI alert to their user-talk, they doubled down on it. DMacks (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Censorless conduct in discussions

Censorless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would like to hear thoughts on discussions involving Censorless.

Timeline. Trying to make this as short and neutral as possible, although some bits are obviously my commentary.

• Censorless attempts multiple edits on Hangul article, which I had written much of: article history
• Talk page discussion begins. Note that Censorless accuses me of reverting in bad faith right away (accuses me of attempting to "hide" information). I ask them to tone down accusations. I explain the reversions. Censorless, in increasingly lengthy posts, begins questioning Wikipedia policy altogether. I explain policies and ask them to stop making posts so long. Censorless continually questions the policies and my explanations, while maintaining post length.
• I begin to lose my patience, although I am still relatively courteous by this point.
• After talks stall, Censorless attempts more edits that I undo for similar reasons.
• Censorless starts new thread on talk page. Again, very long posts, despite my ask to reduce length.
• I post on their talk page, focusing mainly on length of posts and also asking them to tone down some of the aggressive pressing on issues.
• Discussion concludes. User talk post is a bit conciliatory, but both still unhappy.
• Censorless begins making edits on History of Hangul: edit history. Again an edit dispute.
• Article talk page posts begin.
• User talk page posts resume.
• Censorless also posts on Teahouse where people give more or less the same feedback as me, Censorless pushes back against all of them.
• I ask for 3O, User:TooManyFingers replies. TooManyFingers gives similar feedback, which Censorless pushes back against
• User:Sunnyediting99 joins the conversation spontaneously, also gives similar advice to Censorless, also receives pushback.
• Meanwhile, Censorless keeps attempting to push edits through to History of Hangul article before consensus is reached.

My problems:

• At this point, like 4-5 people have given Censorless the same advice, and have received similar lengthy pushback with similar vitriol.
• The WP:TEXTWALLs are really egregious; like 5 people asked Censorless to tone it down and they still ignored the advice until very recently.
• If I didn't respond to every single point in every text wall, Censorless would treat these as "gotcha" moments and act as if I had conceded.
• Numerous times, Censorless accused me of editing in bad faith, despite me asking them to stop. I don't think I did the same for Censorless, although I was telling them sternly to address their conduct issues.
  • E.g. accusing me of WP:OWN. I invite you to look at page history and judge if that's accurate.
• This lengthy dispute is only over like 5 sentences in total. Was it really worth this? I had even told Censorless up front and often that I'd be ok with some details from the edits being included as a compromise, and that my issues were largely around concision and repetition, but they still refuse to compromise.

If Censorless refuses to acknowledge and address these behavioral issues, I recommend a temporary block from editing, with a warning that the block could escalate if they continue behaving this way. grapesurgeon (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Since I was pinged I will chime in, grapesurgeon's account is an accurate and mostly impartial recollection of events. My one criticism of grapesurgeon's response, somewhere between the "History of Hangul Talk Page" and "Censorless post on Teahouse" it seems grapesurgeon lost their patience with Censorless (because Censorless wrote so much, grapesurgeon just started replying with "you wrote ten paragraphs I cant read all that" which I personally wouldn't have said to Censorless, as it seems to have triggered a double down behavior).

HOWEVER, I do honestly think most experienced users would have become frustrated as grapesurgeon did. I get that Censorless is a new editor, people can make mistakes or aren't familiar. That said though, a lot of users now have tried to tell them the three key issues.

1) If you look at Talk:History of Hangul last I checked there was 70 comments between 4 users in the discussion. 35/70 of the comments (50%) were from Censorless, and that isn't even counting word count where they wrote often twice or thrice the length of replies. It is very much WP:Textwall.

2) I'm not sure if they intend to or not but some of the words they say come off as very aggressive. It's very WP:Casting aspersions, like they accused grapesurgeon of trying to "make (Censorless) obey them".

3) They struggle to take feedback. TooManyFingers and I gave what I think was some fairly solid advice. TooManyFingers wrote a LOT actually which summarizes a lot of the situation. I recommended drop the stick. I know it can be difficult as someone whose done it before but it was one possible solution. TooManyFingers was explaining to them how asking users to keep elaborating is essentially stonewalling but I'm not sure if they got that. I asked them to try reducing the length of their replies, they listened to me and shortened their replies to me but i saw a lot of their replies to TooManyFingers were still very long (or they just started doing two back to back replies, which made it just worse because now we have a long reply spilt into two comments).

It is my hope that this can be resolved with civility but I am not too optimistic at the moment. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I broadly agree with grapesurgeon's explanation, and with Sunnyediting99's as well.

Censorless has acted as if there is a rule that Censorless is free to assume bad faith but everyone else must assume good faith. (Examples already provided by others.) They have also acted as if they do not understand a lot of the feedback they've received, shown both by their requests for re-re-re-re-explanation and by the fact that they continued afterwards to do what they were told is not acceptable; from my point of view it makes nearly no difference whether they actually didn't understand or just pretended to not understand, because legitimately misunderstanding but then pressing on as if nothing had been said is likely just as much of a problem as intentional deception. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:42, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Yea, very true TooManyFingers. Its genuinely hard to tell if they either understand but are ignoring grapesurgeon's comments (like, I can just from skimming grapesurgeon's comments on those talk pages I can get a general sense of what they're saying, i don't think its that hard to understand that they think Censorless' edits are redundant, not chronological etc.), or if they're deliberately just asking grapesurgeon to explain something that was already explained.

I could give some leeway if Censorless genuinely misunderstood (and it seemed like they were trying to understand your feedback and mine), but like, you and I both told him to either stop the argument or at least stop asking grapesurgeon to overexplain. Instead their newer comments are slightly shorter in length (I will give credit there) but its just theyre asking grapesurgeon to keep explaining something that isn't that hard to understand. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Or, if understanding "no repeating" and "put all events in order" really is a problem, ... TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Just found out that the report was filed, but I can't post a response right now.

I will get back with my side of the summary of the situation later, most likely within a day.

If something unexpected comes up and delays my response further, I will drop a note here again.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Censorless (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@MrOllie: pinging just in case you're interested; interacted with Censorless on Teahouse before. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Further disruption on Hong Kong subway station articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ~2026-53424-42 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)

Previously reported here back in August 2026 by @Fork99.

IP has returned as ~2026-53424-42 (talk). I discovered this while checking their edits on Olympic station and seeing that a blocked IP previously added the same false information – there is only one line that stops at Olympic station, per the route map. This IP's behavior matches the previous two accounts, with frequent nonsensical edits and large overlap in pages edited, particularly Quarry Bay station. Iiii I I I (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 03:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass removal of archive.is by possible proxies

I do realize that wikipedia banned archive.is, but there is suspicious activity regarding the removal of them.

The edit summaries do not match what actually occured, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelly_Macdonald&diff=prev&oldid=1378531995

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willem_Dafoe&diff=prev&oldid=1378532005

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usman_Nurmagomedov&diff=prev&oldid=1378531736

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bejuma_Municipality&diff=prev&oldid=1378531715

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh_Duhamel&diff=prev&oldid=1378531717

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Shards&diff=prev&oldid=1378533335

This situation is ongoing and I will continue to revert and update this thread. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 22:38, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

EDIT This is either a bot situation or a mass editing effort:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loganton,_Pennsylvania&diff=prev&oldid=1378533825

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Saturdays&diff=prev&oldid=1378533803

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kentwood,_Michigan&diff=prev&oldid=1378533729 Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 22:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

All of those links go to your revert of the removal of the archive link, not the removal itself. Skynxnex (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

see these too Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 22:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I also noticed this but couldn't edit ANI because my phone kept bugging out. Mesocyclonic93 ^(t)_(c) 22:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I have been seeing this activity all day, what gave it away was that the TA I came across only had one edit, but I had to have seen 40-50 removals alone. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 23:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Just came here to see if there was already discussion of this. Whoever is doing this is hopping to a new proxy for every single edit, and some of these edits are randomly shredding ancient talk comments in ways that make them not make any sense. Many of these seem to be randomly echoing edit summaries made by other users earlier in the day; before I clocked what was going on, I blocked a couple for using edit summaries that made it look like they were evading blocks. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

That's the maintainer of archive.today again. sapphaline (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Most of the removals are coming from Charter Communications IP ranges, I think we should block their ASNs for a while. sapphaline (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Or set up an edit filter to tag removals from TAs. sapphaline (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Didn't realize that the maintainer would do that, wonder how many times they have done this. Yeah, I would suggest blocking the ASNs at that point, since it just makes it so someone would have to track down each removed archive and replace it, which already is tedious to update. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 00:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't sure if it was just me, I found a few edits on a few AFDs today: , with a couple weird edit summaries. The underlying IP(s) underneath these TAs all seem to be proxies. I can report what I see to AIV if needed, and link this discussion. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 03:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Assuming this is the maintainer it's not that surprising IMO. The interactions of archive.is with Wikipedia have always been questionable considering in their early days someone who definitely seemed to be associated with the site was running an unauthorised bot to add links and refused to stop or even properly talk about it leading to the sites first ban. And then when we were discussing the second/current one there was stuff that happened there that seemed to be a response, and not stuff which was IMO helpful to the situation. And the ban itself happened because of the questionable way the site and people behind it respond to stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Filter 973 is catching most of the ones editing archives , but I've also been coming across many that are doing the same to mainspace and aren't being logged. nil ^nz 04:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

New thing they are doing. As seen here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paradox_(theorem_prover)&oldid=1378661236, they are now commenting out the archive link. There could be other issues by just commenting out the link instead of replacing it. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 14:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

and indeed there are Special:Permalink/1378655503#External_links /usr/bin/owuh $ (💬 | she/they) 14:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Well that's not good. Can we get an admin to block the proxies to slow this down? SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 15:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Most of them are residential proxies and they don't reuse IPs, so that's pretty much pointless. This would be a lot easier to track if there was an edit filter in place already. @Daniel Quinlan:? sapphaline (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

pointing out that most of the ones that ive seen of them commenting out the links spell "forbidden" as "vorbidden" /usr/bin/owuh $ (💬 | she/they) 15:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if we could do a range block for the proxies they use. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 16:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, they changed the words they used again. Guess they might be watching this post. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 16:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I can't say much about the filter, but there is one in progress to help deal with this. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

---

Here are all (I think) unreverted edits of this type:

1. special:diff/1378544981
2. special:diff/1378559166
3. special:diff/1378490391
4. special:diff/1378486433
5. special:diff/1378495087
6. special:diff/1378526061
7. special:diff/1378487482
8. special:diff/1378488733
9. special:diff/1378534730
10. special:diff/1378500946
11. special:diff/1378500648
12. special:diff/1378484799
13. special:diff/1378493223
14. special:diff/1378532130
15. special:diff/1378500603
16. special:diff/1378535757
17. special:diff/1378526642
18. special:diff/1378485764
19. special:diff/1378496762
20. special:diff/1378481936
21. special:diff/1378546520
22. special:diff/1378489569
23. special:diff/1378485849
24. special:diff/1378494143
25. special:diff/1378504148
26. special:diff/1378483816
27. special:diff/1378493068
28. special:diff/1378519003
29. special:diff/1378490104
30. special:diff/1378487728
31. special:diff/1378488616
32. special:diff/1378484295
33. special:diff/1378492498
34. special:diff/1378494492
35. special:diff/1378483275
36. special:diff/1378485321
37. special:diff/1378529579
38. special:diff/1378483037
39. special:diff/1378541932
40. special:diff/1378549717
41. special:diff/1378486812
42. special:diff/1378493839
43. special:diff/1378484642
44. special:diff/1378520071
45. special:diff/1378494804
46. special:diff/1378528273
47. special:diff/1378497520
48. special:diff/1378500938
49. special:diff/1378548494
50. special:diff/1378485370
51. special:diff/1378492561
52. special:diff/1378485271
53. special:diff/1378536730
54. special:diff/1378482239
55. special:diff/1378537473
56. special:diff/1378531929
57. special:diff/1378505394
58. special:diff/1378530184
59. special:diff/1378497088
60. special:diff/1378551437
61. special:diff/1378498091
62. special:diff/1378483733
63. special:diff/1378487656
64. special:diff/1378487600
65. special:diff/1378504451
66. special:diff/1378483106
67. special:diff/1378481616
68. special:diff/1378485664
69. special:diff/1378487940
70. special:diff/1378605780
71. special:diff/1378481731
72. special:diff/1378540985
73. special:diff/1378525357
74. special:diff/1378533845
75. special:diff/1378501290
76. special:diff/1378484358
77. special:diff/1378529109
78. special:diff/1378493710
79. special:diff/1378535084
80. special:diff/1378542113
81. special:diff/1378488683
82. special:diff/1378484226
83. special:diff/1378492223
84. special:diff/1378529532
85. special:diff/1378484592
86. special:diff/1378482448
87. special:diff/1378497269
88. special:diff/1378484459
89. special:diff/1378481698
90. special:diff/1378494516
91. special:diff/1378519766
92. special:diff/1378483157
93. special:diff/1378493633
94. special:diff/1378505066
95. special:diff/1378504905
96. special:diff/1378529338
97. special:diff/1378540629
98. special:diff/1378591205
99. special:diff/1378594433
100. special:diff/1378485542
101. special:diff/1378482528
102. special:diff/1378485812
103. special:diff/1378482772
104. special:diff/1378497907
105. special:diff/1378537446
106. special:diff/1378492737
107. special:diff/1378492284
108. special:diff/1378486600
109. special:diff/1378537673
110. special:diff/1378541623
111. special:diff/1378529640
112. special:diff/1378534237
113. special:diff/1378527454
114. special:diff/1378535964
115. special:diff/1378481995
116. special:diff/1378507437
117. special:diff/1378493989
118. special:diff/1378485949
119. special:diff/1378494364
120. special:diff/1378492165
121. special:diff/1378485227
122. special:diff/1378552329
123. special:diff/1378527755
124. special:diff/1378530867
125. special:diff/1378541598
126. special:diff/1378492084
127. special:diff/1378487017
128. special:diff/1378494761
129. special:diff/1378529804
130. special:diff/1378490036
131. special:diff/1378489955
132. special:diff/1378493546
133. special:diff/1378488264
134. special:diff/1378489432
135. special:diff/1378531200
136. special:diff/1378493510
137. special:diff/1378482389
138. special:diff/1378486505
139. special:diff/1378598646
140. special:diff/1378520545
141. special:diff/1378498023
142. special:diff/1378494446
143. special:diff/1378529422
144. special:diff/1378519860
145. special:diff/1378518657
146. special:diff/1378518972
147. special:diff/1378494188
148. special:diff/1378518941
149. special:diff/1378520779
150. special:diff/1378504372
151. special:diff/1378505261
152. special:diff/1378544096
153. special:diff/1378501086
154. special:diff/1378496032
155. special:diff/1378487808
156. special:diff/1378533400
157. special:diff/1378530025
158. special:diff/1378500741
159. special:diff/1378484747
160. special:diff/1378488336
161. special:diff/1378489119
162. special:diff/1378486950
163. special:diff/1378500705
164. special:diff/1378484185
165. special:diff/1378538533
166. special:diff/1378481886
167. special:diff/1378493770
168. special:diff/1378546082
169. special:diff/1378518766
170. special:diff/1378505322
171. special:diff/1378528985
172. special:diff/1378556343
173. special:diff/1378528489
174. special:diff/1378547503
175. special:diff/1378505837
176. special:diff/1378491977
177. special:diff/1378485097
178. special:diff/1378531570
179. special:diff/1378488903
180. special:diff/1378546983
181. special:diff/1378481660
182. special:diff/1378484842
183. special:diff/1378483299
184. special:diff/1378489716
185. special:diff/1378484699
186. special:diff/1378489857
187. special:diff/1378500788
188. special:diff/1378537511
189. special:diff/1378504686
190. special:diff/1378489378
191. special:diff/1378505983
192. special:diff/1378484128
193. special:diff/1378484529
194. special:diff/1378487360
195. special:diff/1378536888
196. special:diff/1378540712
197. special:diff/1378480364
198. special:diff/1378492189
199. special:diff/1378488111
200. special:diff/1378494037
201. special:diff/1378484945
202. special:diff/1378531607
203. special:diff/1378484253
204. special:diff/1378485139
205. special:diff/1378482134
206. special:diff/1378488031
207. special:diff/1378489172
208. special:diff/1378531114
209. special:diff/1378491892
210. special:diff/1378482598
211. special:diff/1378492781
212. special:diff/1378483220
213. special:diff/1378525519
214. special:diff/1378532519
215. special:diff/1378527708
216. special:diff/1378506915
217. special:diff/1378488398
218. special:diff/1378546886
219. special:diff/1378496329
220. special:diff/1378552036
221. special:diff/1378541652
222. special:diff/1378501009
223. special:diff/1378492444
224. special:diff/1378494416
225. special:diff/1378485590
226. special:diff/1378485893
227. special:diff/1378529024
228. special:diff/1378487216
229. special:diff/1378488478
230. special:diff/1378486359
231. special:diff/1378482827
232. special:diff/1378494234
233. special:diff/1378485419
234. special:diff/1378504302
235. special:diff/1378492132
236. special:diff/1378534485
237. special:diff/1378486875
238. special:diff/1378485002
239. special:diff/1378504827
240. special:diff/1378481497
241. special:diff/1378484074
242. special:diff/1378482877
243. special:diff/1378529461
244. special:diff/1378544732
245. special:diff/1378493953
246. special:diff/1378542604
247. special:diff/1378485477
248. special:diff/1378520234
249. special:diff/1378500863
250. special:diff/1378482296
251. special:diff/1378542905
252. special:diff/1378483577
253. special:diff/1378487115
254. special:diff/1378488546
255. special:diff/1378492676
256. special:diff/1378497847
257. special:diff/1378489038
258. special:diff/1378493174
259. special:diff/1378497413
260. special:diff/1378500988
261. special:diff/1378502062
262. special:diff/1378492611
263. special:diff/1378506985
264. special:diff/1378501353
265. special:diff/1378604410
266. special:diff/1378482952
267. special:diff/1378489273
268. special:diff/1378494075
269. special:diff/1378505778
270. special:diff/1378482695
271. special:diff/1378531023
272. special:diff/1378481766
273. special:diff/1378536354
274. special:diff/1378485048
275. special:diff/1378488184
276. special:diff/1378518906
277. special:diff/1378527010

There might be some false positives. sapphaline (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Checked the first 100 edits. sapphaline (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

+30. sapphaline (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

IP/TA hopping editor using a script to mass edit archives

There appears to be an editor hopping across IPs/TA to mass edit archives, to remove links to archive.today. When they started they were using summaries that mentioned archive.today, but have started using fake summaries. I suspect they're using a script as it has failed at least once. This doesn't seem like the behaviour of a random TA or new editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:53, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I've notified the last TA used, but I doubt there will use it again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

This has been an issue all day, I created a thread on the same topic above. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 00:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry missed that, I've merged the sections. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:05, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

No worries mate, TA edit bots don't occur everyday and you were right to make a thread. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 01:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Given their knowledge I wouldn't be surprised if they have (or at least had) a named account, and are using TAs as they are IPs to mask their identity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Now these editors are trying to corrupt the links intentionally, this edit being an example. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

That changelog text on ("Tested out various features for editing on Wikipedia as per the training module") screams as something being done with AI to make these changes. Masem (t) 12:08, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Probably just pulling random summaries since I saw one as being a Conflict of Interest reply on the actual article. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 13:05, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Racial slur in edit summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A new user, SoylentMale (talk · contribs), wrote the n-word in their first edit summary []. Very clear WP:NOTHERE case that needs to be addressed. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 00:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

 indef'd as NOTHERE. Mfield (Oi!) 00:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BlueboyLINY reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Making a personal attack on my talk page, claiming that I own articles () Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

What I said was "you don't own" TV articles, how is that a personal attack? I didn't say anything about you as a person or threaten you, that's not my personality. I'm just fed up with your behavior towards me that's been going on for years. I'm here to build an encyclopedia and sometimes spend a lot of time on an article, only to have you undo my edits without giving any reason why. I'm sorry if my frustration seemed like a personal attack. ~ BlueboyLINY (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@BlueboyLINY "Please stop! You don't own TV articles, stop reverting my edits without even giving a valid reason why." - This is valid, although it could be phrased more civilly. Reverting edits without an explanation is indeed highly frowned upon, including in policies such as WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:EDITCON. If you were to provide diffs that show that this is an ongoing issue, that would probably be helpful.

"Go revert some vandalism and leave me alone. I'm tired of whatever grudge you have against me, enough is enough!" - This probably should not have been written, or at least phrased in such a confrontational way, even if you are highly frustrated.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@غوّاص العلم I understand I was wrong being confrontational, and was ready to apologize to @Mvcg66b3r, when I saw this violation of the WP:3RR. ~ BlueboyLINY (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I was correcting some typos. Like I said, I do not intend to "own" articles. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Gemini is for Naziis reported by User:Strongshorts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am a recent changes patroller and I saw an edit by the user User:Gemini is for Naziis. I am reporting this user for their offensive and defamitory username. Strongshorts (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Account has been globally locked by a Steward. JavaHurricane 07:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Varoon2542 adding unsourced content and using personal attacks

User:Varoon2542 has received multiple warnings regarding adding unsourced content before (such as at diff1 and diff2) despite this, he's still doing it again at Mauritians of Indian origin with adding unsourced claims and personally attacking other editors.

Personal attacks is common from this user. To quote Varoon just one year ago, You're biased like your fellow countryman... Are you ashamed that your countrymen migrate to my country ? - AProtestantBoy (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is him casting an aspersion right now. - AProtestantBoy (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

AProtestantBoy, I urge you to stop reverting. User talk:Varoon2542, I'm not sure why you haven't responded here. Both of you would do well to actually EXPLAIN what you are doing in an edit summary. And yes, both of you are edit warring as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Both are clearly edit warring. However AProtestantBoy seems to be editing in good faith, even if a bit misguidedly at times. I do think Varoon's xenophobic remarks are of note "Biased like your fellow countryman" MacTheOp (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Cambial yellowing

User Cambial yellowing (talk · contribs) inserted the label "climate change denier" to Nigel Lawson's article in October 2025 and has since edit warred with almost 20 other users over it: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. The whole article's history is basically people removing the label and Cambial yellowing reverting them, and he has not bothered to find any kind of consensus on the talk page. Several users have given explanations why the change is inappropriate 1, 2, 3, yet he keeps restoring it. Looking at the user's own talk page, it's littered with warnings of all kinds, which he often simply dimisses as "trolling", and he even reverted a talk page discussion I tried to initiate with nonsensical allegations. The user has a history of this kind of behavior, being currently topic-banned from the topic of Scientology, and it does not seem it will improve any time soon ~2026-53481-34 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Hmm there's a lot of TA disruption there and I semi-protected it. Rather than spend so much time collecting diffs, you could have continued the talk page discussion started there by the user to find consensus for your proposed change. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
  • I tried to but my talk page thread was reverted with unfounded allegations. It seems you have now also restored the disputed label for which there was never any consensus or discussion and then protected the article afterwards so that no-one can change it anymore. Why? ~2026-53481-34 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
    • Ah, you were suspected of being a sock--interesting. Cambial yellowing (talk · contribs), a little background here would be helpful--and perhaps an SPI report. I reverted and made the article completely wrong because that's what admins do. It's the usual giant conspiracy. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

This user keeps calling everyone a troll or sock. I have no idea who "mr hall" is even supposed to be but you're free to do an IP check if that clears it up. I'm more interested in when Cambial yellowing's behaviour will be adressed, or are you trying to say there's nothing wrong with it at all? ~2026-53524-67 (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-53524-67, if you want to use an open proxy to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request the IP block exemption permission from a registered account. Noting that ~2026-53481-34 and ~2026-53524-67 have been editing from the same open proxy. — Newslinger talk 19:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikihounding and personal attack

Arsabent seems to have created a pattern of wikihounding me just today, together with a fairly blatant personal attack. To my knowledge, I have barely interacted with this user before, but this came after one more hounding incident against me (reported here) which was ignored.

During this cycle of edits and reverts on articles I have edited (see, e.g., diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4), including an unexplained revert in an article which was the main subject of the former wikihounding incident (see: here) and a revert of a talk page comment I had left (see here the user basically directed Turkish phrase "Öyle g** böyle y***" at me (see here. The uncensored expression is "Öyle göte böyle yarak", an extremely vulgar Turkish insult literally meaning "a dick like that for an ass like this", essentially that someone like me deserves bad treatment. I don't really see how this can be interpreted as anything other than a personal attack under WP:NPA.

I obviously would not have reported a normal content revert, but it is clear that I am being followed by this user, who appears on other pages I edit, directs vulgar insults at me, and even interferes with my talk-page contributions. I believe that administrator attention is required at this point given the history on my account getting targeted (see here and here).

I also kindly ask attention at the Siege of Tripolitsa article and, what seems to me to be a WP:POVFORK of it, the newly created Tripolitsa massacre, as my comments on the talk page of the former have not produced a result. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Arsabent, "a dick like that for an ass like this"? For real? I think you need to explain this. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  First of all, I apologize for using derogatory language toward Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah. No one on Wikipedia deserves to be treated disrespectfully.

  However, I would advise administrators to look into the editing history and sources used by Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah for articles related to the culture and national values of Turkey. Some of these sources appear to be biased, and the information appears to be selective, making Turks come across negatively when compared to Greeks. Additionally, his continuous involvement in edit wars and vandalism can warrant further action. He seems to continuously remove Turkish sources while adding Greek sources, which are all violations under WP:VAND, WP:EW and NPOV.

  Once again, I sincerely apologize for my language and behavior. Arsabent (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's clear that is an AI-written message and that the accusations have no basis in fact (no diffs). I am a native Turkish-speaker and I have also cited countless Turkish sources in the past.

  My main issue wasn't so much the personal attack, as with the history and pattern of recent wikihounding alongside it (note the previous ANI thread of mine too). I guess I appreciate the apology as a sentiment though. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Legal threat?

I noticed at WP:RFPP (and was also canvassed off-wiki about it "because I'm a Wikipedia admin") about this request. Does "I will be contacting Reform as a paid up member of the party to see this action is done." qualify as a legal threat (the implication that they're going to get Reform UK's lawyers on the phone to the WMF to override the consensus).

As I have strong views on Reform UK and Nigel Farage (and that's putting it as politely as possible) I can't really take any action myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For me, it's not direct enough to call it a legal threat (i.e. it would probably need to directly mention a court, lawyer, etc.) to count as a legal threat. Contacting the party itself more broadly might not cut it, as it could mean something political instead of something legal, know what I mean? In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 16:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The intent is still the same. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend asking the user involved to clarify whom they are going to talk to if you have any doubts. It is entirely possible they did mean going to the lawyers, but I'd still want more direct proof before sanctions come into play. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 16:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it merits a legal threat block yet, sounds more like grandstanding. Recommend some WP:ROPE. Mfield (Oi!) 16:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The idea of calling the UK Conservative Party left of center is certainly amusing tho. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds off even to my American eyes. (I know nearly nothing about British politics) In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Personally, no. That looks like "I'm going to file a complaint in the complaint box unless you do what I say". I'd just ignore it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Just ignore it. Hopefully it doesn't get worse :( ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It's more akin to "remove the negative info about my university, or I'll complain to the university authorities and they will see it done" or "remove the negative info about the company I work for, or I'll go straight to the boss who will make sure it is done". -- ~2026-53694-49 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

~2026-40813-31 potentially NOTHERE

• ~2026-40813-31 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)

This user potentially lacks the maturity to edit here. Their talk page is littered with several warnings over a long period of time. For the third time, they have created the same silly draft Draft:Callie torres. On its own, potentially not worthy of a block. I actually find their behaviour in other spaces more problematic. For example, this disruptive ANI thread. Also, this and this at the AfC help desk.

If that's not enough, they are also responding poorly to warnings. This was not an appropriate response. In my view, WP:NOTHERE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It's either WP:CIR or trolling; either way I've blocked indef.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring on Conquistador

I am requesting administrator review of an ongoing edit war concerning the lead image of Conquistador.

The other editor and I have repeatedly reverted each other's edits. I have stopped reverting and am asking for administrative review rather than continuing the dispute.

The other User:Austidd (likely ~2026-53419-43, ~2026-53859-52 , ~2026-53714-35) insists on reiterating and repeating the same image File:La conquista del Colorado.jpg in the the beginning of the article and under ==Conquest== body of the article.

this users has also accused me two times of being a sockpuppet. (I am not operating another account) I have not responded by making a reciprocal sockpuppet accusation. Please, read the edit log.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conquistador&action=history

I am not asking an administrator to decide the content dispute in my favor. I am asking for review of the edit-warring and the personal/sockpuppet accusation, and for whatever action is appropriate under Wikipedia's policies.

I have stopped reverting the page while this is being reviewed. ~2026-49241-75 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

If you put in an ANI please give a notification to the other user per the rules of ANI by putting it on their talk page. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)