Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

"WP:ANI" redirects here. For information about the Asian News International (ANI) lawsuit, see Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.

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:The-Pope removing LLMPRODs and AI-generated tags

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

---

User:The-Pope has been removing LLMPROD tags, restoring edits deleted under LLMPRV, and removing AI-generated tags without adequately fixing the articles, in violation of WP:LLMPRVOBJ. For example, they removed LLMPROD tags from Jason Salecic in . When an AI-generated tag was added to the article instead, they reverted it with an edit summary "Undo vandalism." They claimed to have fully checked the citations , but a source/text analysis found multiple issues (see WP:AINB#Discussion of LLMPROD and tag removal for the analysis). Their response to the analysis was dismissive followed by . (As of today no stubification has been done.)

When asked to userfy or draftify LLMPROD articles for later fixing, they refused: User talk:The-Pope#LLMPRVOBJ and accused the editor who reverted their LLMPROD removals of vandalism . They did later draftify some articles but only after a lengthy argument in which they basically denied that they had to follow the WP:LLMPRVOBJ rules.

The thread at AINB documented multiple other instances of refusing LLMPRODs and removing tags; several are listed in .

I believe this is a good-faith editor, but one who feels entitled to ignore guidelines in order to "save" articles, a point on which they feel very strongly (this diff shows the mindset: ).

I'd like to be clear that I see no sign of LLM use. The problem is removal of LLMPROD and AI-generated tags contrary to guidelines, which is blocking cleanup and leaving LLM text in mainspace in violation of WP:NOLLM. I hope they can be convinced to stop doing this. M kuhner (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree with the above in respect of User:The-Pope, it's difficult to see consensus shining through here, and User:The-Pope seems somewhat fixed in their position. I agree they are working in good-faith, but their strong views (and doubtless love of his sport) on clearly detected LLM usage, and which are simply incorrect under the guidelines, are getting in the way of the project. I hope we can reach a better solution than where we are now. Describing another entirely correct edit of LLM tagging as vandalism is unfortunate to say the least. ChrysGalley (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Also their attitude is terrible in that AINB thread; very abrasive without justification. And not encouraging when they point to high edit count to try and excuse bad behavior and editing. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

My inclusion of my edit count was in reply to the "babysitting" comment that was condescending and inappropriate.The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

(just FTR, I made a mistake in LLMPRODing Jason Salecic, it was raised on my talk here) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yup, the AINB thread conduct is definitely disappointing. Especially since one explanation provided was similar negative feelings about the mass cleanup of unreferenced BLPs from 2010. I really hope they come here and discuss this. When there's a direct clash between "good encyclopedia" and "large encyclopedia," the former should win, and even if they feel strongly about keeping content, it's not fair to the community if they make slopfarming cleanup more difficult. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the majority of the initial list of TBound2's articles that initiated the disagreement between gurkubondinn and I were bios of female athletes. WE all want a good encyclopedia, but I would like one with less gender bias. Whilst they all were borderline notable (thanks to the NSPORT change - and I did tag some with refimprove tags), I still believe that they were worth saving. And as I explain below, these were barely "slop" when initially tagged, and definitely were not slop after I reviewed them. They aren't GA-class works of art, but they are not slop. The-Pope (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you, please, stop alleging or presuming motives for me? Alleging that I have some sexist agenda is extremely inappropriate and I do not appreciate reading that. The articles are LLM-generated. They don't have to the "slop" to be LLM-generated and fail the WP:NOLLM guideline.

Others might also be interested in the Chloe Gaunt article that I fixed, after you had claimed to have Fully checked every word and ref of. I found several source integrity issues. This is a BLP of a woman athlete. Please don't try to weaponise sexism on Wikipedia, which is a real problem.

You have now accused me of sexism (once) and vandalism (multiple times), and told me to be condescending to someone else and to do something constructive for this project. I'm not very prone to complaining about what people say about me, but I'm getting rather tired of this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I made no comment about your motives, only mine. The-Pope (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The implication of WE all want a good encyclopedia, but I would like one with less gender bias is pretty damn clear. At least stand by the aspersion. I was thinking a sanction a remote possibility, but I'm a lot less sure after this discussion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I repeat that my entire comments about gender bias were only in regards to my reaction to the threatened deletion of a bunch of articles. I understand and want to make clear that I believe that gurkubondinn's motives were solely about eliminating AI generated text, nothing to do with any gender bias. I apologise if that wasn't clear in my original response. The-Pope (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Just noting unrelated to the discussion but user:The-Pope also appears to be accepting their own afc's (im not sure if this is allowed or not as I dont do AFC often) Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 14:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I dont see any issue with that. I've done it once before, (I think it was Blackpitts) as I originally was unsure if the subject was notable, but after further expansion its notability was clear, so I accepted it (because it would be quicker than moving it normally because of existing afc comments) Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The AFCH script also wouldn't allow the page creator to accept their own drafts it wasn't okay to do it. It's not really all that different from starting with a page in draft space and then moving it to article space yourself (but it does generate an odd-looking message on your talk page from yourself). ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, my attitude to this has been very grumpy. It all started months ago, when I first saw a bunch of articles get LLMProded, and it did bring back unpleasant memories of the UBLP saga. So the first thing I did was read up on WP:LLM (not WP:LLMPRVOBJ) and saw that using LLMs were banned.

But the opening line of WP:LLM back then said "Text generated by large language models (LLMs) often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies. For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited." That was what I focused on. Ensuring the core content policies weren't being violated. I wasn't using LLMs, so I wasn't infringing the guideline. I edited those articles, read the references, removed any excessive details, but did not think I had to re-write them from scratch if they complied with the core content policies.

After being challenged on that by User:gurkubondinn, who brought WP:LLMPRVOBJ to my attention, I read that, and inferred that what I was doing was fully in compliance with the instructions: "An editor objecting to the removal of content may assume responsibility for the content" and "Assuming responsibility requires that all content and its sources be closely reviewed and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines." Others obviously disagreed. I was checking against the core policies of WP:V which is Verifiability, not Verified.

The laundry list of "errors" that User:M kuhner listed is more like a WP:GAN review than a WP:V check. Nothing that was "unverified" by their standards could be considered contentious or "likely to be challenged" as specified by WP:V. So, back to the opening statement of this complaint: Yes I removed LLMPROD tags and AI-generated tags BUT ONLY AFTER ENSURING THAT THE ARTICLE MEETS THE CORE POLICIES, not that ever single fact is verified.

Gurubondinn stated in the AINB thread that "The part that you are missing is that LLM-generated material is not allowed on enwiki, the WP:NOLLM guideline makes no exceptions for LLM-generated material seems correct (this clearly isn't, as has been shown to you already). There are no exceptions to NOLLM, if it is LLM-generated it has to go. End of story." That is blatantly wrong. Neither NOLLM nor LLMPRVOBJ says that you must "delete it all" or "elevate it to GA standard", it literally just says "don't use it" and "an editor may assume responsibility for the content". THAT'S WHAT I DID. Maybe I should have been more explicit in my edit summaries to make that clear. When I removed the tags, or moved the AFC articles (never mine, just ones that I find in draft) back to mainspace, it's only after I read and check that the content is OK. And I assume responsibility for the content. If that isn't what you want LLMPRVOBJ to mean, then change the wording. The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@The-Pope:, WP:NOLLM does not say an editor may assume responsibility for the content. It says The use of large language models (LLMs) to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited (with exceptions for simple grammar correction and translations). Outside those two small exceptions, yes, any LLM-generated content created after the adoption of NOLLM on 20 March 2026 indeed has to go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLMPRVOBJ has the assume responsibility line. But your quote from LLM still doesn't say it has to go. It just says the use is prohibited. I see that as a rule to block/ban people who use it (and I don't use it). Then you go to LLMPRVOBJ to see how to fix it, and it clearly, and unambiguously says "An editor may assume responsibility for the content". If you want to nuke every LLM suspected article, then propose that and change the guidelines. Because that isn't what is written now. The-Pope (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, no. "Vandalism is also prohibited, so let's not revert them but only block such users, eh?" If a thing is prohibited, it should not stay there. It also doesn't necessarily mean to block the user, as the user can also be warned before such an action. Jako96 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

But WP:LLMPRVOBJ does allow an editor to take responsibility for content after checking if it meets the policies and guidelines. That's also a guideline and NOLLM refers to it. There may be good faith disagreement over what entails a sufficient check, but that's likely better resolved by an RfC and at Village Pumps, not here. Fences&Windows 16:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

An editor objecting to the removal of content may assume responsibility for the content, as well as the onus to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Assuming responsibility requires that all content and its sources be closely reviewed and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines.[emphasis added]
— WP:LLMPRVOBJ

It's not a "loophole" that allows you to restore or retain LLM-generated material, it has to be rewritten first. The usual recommendation is stubification, but some editors routinely do full article rewrites. Just restoring the material, or removing an LLMPROD tag, and saying "I take responsibility for this" does not satisfy the LLMPRVOBJ requirements on its own. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion that determined the wording of LLMPRVOBJ specifically mentions a "it may be ok to just check" case.

The issue I have with "Any editor can reverse a presumptive removal, though they must rework the content to comply with policies and guidelines." is that it presumes that presumptively removed content always needs reworking. There needs to be some way for someone to assert that actually this bit of content is fine (and they take responsibility for being so). User:Thryduulf 23:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The-Pope (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

It isn't black or white, the spirit of NOLLM is that LLM-generated content is largely prohibited; generally-speaking people are expected to significantly rework content (but not always or all of it!). Preserving some is fine, especially wrt tables and content that presents little opportunity to reword. But this is besides the point, one of your reviews were found to have several WP:V failures, and I expect there're more to be found in others. "Taking responsibility" means it is as if you added those WP:V failures yourself, which would be at a rate that's unacceptable at ordinary standards (not just GA's). Why did this require several bust-ups and an ANI thread? You're not entitled to cause this much disruption in pursuit of satisfaction because of your tenure. Lots more functional ways this could have been dealt with Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftification or userfication was proposed as an alternative to deletion. Tagging as AI-generated was also tried. (See discussion on The-Pope's Talk page.) Why is it so important that, not only should the articles not be deleted, but they have to be in mainspace right now with the LLM text intact, and can't even be tagged as LLM?

What I personally would love to see is draftification or userfication, a clean human rewrite, and restoration. That would be a happy ending. The subjects of these articles, and Wikipedia as a whole, deserve better than the LLM versions. The two articles I vetted are--source/text aside--lifeless and somewhat inane. I am 100% sure The-Pope could do better, as an experienced editor with human judgment. Or someone else could.

Plausible looking but wrong LLM text is not an asset to the encyclopedia: that's my view from reading a ton of it over the last 5 months. It interferes with getting better text, because fixing it is so difficult, and editors can't see that it even needs fixing. {{citation needed}} or even a bare uncited claim are easy problems to see. An LLM citation to a plausible source that doesn't confirm the claim is much harder to spot, and each of the articles I vetted, supposedly checked by an experienced editor, had multiple instances of that. M kuhner (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you just say, and in particular that they deserve better than these LLM-generated articles. That is more or less what I keep saying whenever this comes up, I think that it is an insult to these people to leave LLM-generated articles about them laying around. It suggests that we don't care about them. This is also something that I think about often when I see articles about cultures or history that is underrepresented here on the English Wikipedia. Carelessly pasted LLM-generated articles are worse than no article at all, in my opinion.

Deleting LLM-generated articles doesn't mean that these people (or subjects) shouldn't be represented on the English Wikipedia. It just means that they shouldn't be represented by these specific articles (that were generated by an LLM) and that they should be represented by articles written by someone who actually cared enough to take the time do the research, sit down and write an article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The "V failures" were very minor, not contentious at all, and could've been solved with a {{CN}}, not a threat of deletion and reporting to ani. The-Pope (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I just finally closed out a case where someone made 150 edits with that kind of problem--in one evening. If there were only a few such articles, a labor-intensive hand fix might be worthwhile. But that's not the Wikipedia we have right now.

I also don't agree that the source/text issues are necessarily minor. When we write "Joe won the tournament (1)" we are not just claiming that Joe won the tournament, we are claiming that (1) says he won it. If it doesn't--and in LLM articles it often doesn't, I'd say about 25%--we're publishing a falsehood.

A couple months ago I found an LLM article that claimed "ten forced-labor camps in Cambodia and nearby countries." The source said, "several forced-labor camps in Cambodia." Small but not minor. Unless every single source is diligently checked, this sort of thing can easily be missed. That's why our current practice is to assume LLM text is not innocent. M kuhner (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Nice examples, but not relevant to this case at all. The-Pope (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure "but someone can assume responsibility for the content," is the rebuttal you're looking for. After all, that would mean that whenever you remove a tag from LLM-generated content, then you are responsible for the LLM content, and should be sanctioned for violating the guideline about writing LLM content. But I'm not sure that you want a sanction, or that anyone else here came in thinking of that as the most likely result. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

That's some wild mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion. LLM content is just a combination of English words and there aren't that many to choose from in some cases. If you want the only response to presumed LLM content to be removal, then change the guideline to say that and delete the assume responsibility line. I followed the guideline as written. The-Pope (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Assuming responsibility means assuming responsibility. That means the WP:ONUS is on you to reach consensus on keeping LLM content.

You have done tremendous work on this project over the years. However, I do not believe your attitude toward LLM use is compatible with the current consensus on English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

My attitude is to the text in front of me, not where it came from, that's the difference. I ensured there were no hallucinations. No blatant false hoods. Yes, the referencing could be improved. Yes the phrasing was a bit flowery at times. But the core policies were all upheld before or straight after I removed any tags.

If you want a commitment from me about LLM sourced material, then have a look at what I did to Jason Salecic and Julia Teakle yesterday. And then have a look at gurkubondinn's "fix-up" edits to Chloe Gaunt that he's been spruiking, and what I had to do to fix that one. No one is perfect.

And please, raise an RFC at llmprvobj to remove or clarify the assume responsibility line. The-Pope (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I think it's clear what the problem is here. It's still worth seeing how much farther this discussion goes before any proposals, but I think that it's clear that at least a minimum sanction, of restricting you from removing any tags related to LLMs is a must. There's no need for an RFC; I think the problem here is your approach. You're not a slopfarmer, but you're giving them stalls at the market. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Support a minimum sanction of a TBAN as suggested, there has been too much disruption caused. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:22, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. Jako96 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The guideline you're misusing to support this sanction says "Assuming responsibility requires that all content and its sources be closely reviewed and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines. Besides potentially removing the content, a review may involve checking that the cited sources support the content and are reliable, determining whether the content is due for inclusion, and reworking the content to revise the tone and resolve possible copyright violations. Editors may find 'stubbifying' to be the easiest solution, so long as what remains is reviewed." It does not say all LLM generated text must be removed, just that this is one option. It says the content should be "reworked as needed". It gives suggestions by using the word "may" on what the check involves. If you want the guideline to say something else, you need an RfC. Fences&Windows 20:59, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

But if care isn't taken, and there have been examples provided, then it was not closely reviewed and reworked as needed, so taking responsibility is the same as having written the LLM content yourself. I think the suggested sanction, simply a restriction on removing LLM tags, isn't particularly onerous; it just leaves the removing LLM content to, frankly, someone who actually cares about it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has saved multiple LLM articles from deletion, "Assuming responsibility" for an article means affirming that you have (or soon will have) edited the article to be compliant with all policies and guidelines, including WP:NOLLM. So when you "take responsibility" for an article you are either affirming that you have rewritten the LLM content or that you have assessed that the content is not actually LLM and are willing to stand by that assessment. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 19:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Support I've seen enough. Regardless of what you call it The-Pope is clearly not taking sufficient responsibility for their edits and forcing others to spend lots of time cleaning up their mess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

review the edits on Chloe Gaunt and ask if this is a mess, or minor normal editing? The-Pope (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Will we proceed? Jako96 (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN: The disruption warrants this IMO. Padgriffin (Squawk) 13:07, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN, reluctantly, but I can't see a better solution from here. M kuhner (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Support, this should have stopped after one or two of the prior discussions. There is a battleground attitude, demonstrated above and by the early accusation that an editor doing backlog cleanup is vandalising the project. At the same time, this is a very minor measure that will not impede editing. CMD (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The vandalism reverts were ONLY done after I had done what I considered an appropriate "backlog cleanup" on the articles, by "assuming responsibility for the article" as per the guideline. Threatening to delete the article because I only did a full hallucination check and WP:NPP level check that it conforms to the Core Policies, rather than deleting it all, or doing a full WP:GAN level check is actual basis the dispute. None of the "mess left behind" or "disruption" was significant. None of the "care not taken" were contentious issues that required specific citations according to WP:V. The-Pope (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose The-Pope's interpretation of the rules is reasonable and they appear to have been following it diligently. Doesn't rise to the level of sanctions by any means. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - too much disruption and an attitude that suggests it won't stop soon. GiantSnowman 08:27, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Support TBAN in respect of LLM tags. The clear failure to listen to others, or even compromise by way of consensus building, suggest that the editor here is in denial and raises fairly fundamental questions about their judgement. It is all "I know best". ChrysGalley (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, wasn't going to but accusing people in this thread of (what would be an incredibly poor method of) sockpuppeting is over the line. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• An IP just undid my major trimming on Jason Salecic and reinstated the LLMProd tag. Am I allowed to remove that? Did anyone else notice by having it on their watchlist? Is deleting that article to make it a smaller encyclopaedia what you want? Is that not more disruptive than anything I've done? The-Pope (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know who this was, and it's not something I would endorse. M kuhner (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  It feels out of protocol while an ANI discussion is ongoing. Unhelpful, and illustrates (yet again) the lack of accountability that IP editing can cause. Personally I would leave it nevertheless for now. Anything that gets deleted can go through WP:REFUND, even though I think TNT + new text may be the better, most assured way forward. ChrysGalley (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  And now it's been deleted by User:Bearcat. I want to AGF, but I would love a checkuser on everyone in this thread against that IP editor. This is being disruptive. Did anyone even check the edits. Did Bearcat check the history? I do the right thing, it still gets deleted. Sure it's only a refund to fix, but it's more hassle and needless extra work. Disruption. For no reason. The-Pope (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  In my experience, sending a short note to one of the lovely administrators to REFUND, at a time of your choosing, and when no-one else is breathing down your neck and you have sensible time and space, is far more sensible a process than a long list of alternatives that could have happened. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Checkusers usually can't connect TAs/IPs to named accounts, but if you've got WP:TAIV you can see where it geolocates. If it's a LOUTSOCK, it's no-one I can think of (I think that's okay to say?). ANI often gets participation from TAs/IPs (impossible to know whether they're mostly just drama-loving LOUTSOCKs) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  The re-tagging is in the AbuseLog/45183096 filter log entry. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• I also support a TBAN on articles with AI-cleanup-related tags. It seems like quite a few articles are being affected and The-Pope doesn't seem to be listening to anyone's feedback/criticism on the matter. It seems they have their own idea of WP:LLMPROD that is different from WP's guidelines. And they are using misleading edit summaries like "vandalism" when someone adds an "AI-generated" tag. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Involved admin so not closing, but pinging so this does not get archived without a close. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 30 September 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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 seven day one month block, then warning: 1
• Site ban: 0

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

Escalating disruption + LLM misuse

I am requesting a block of Neutral user123 for a pattern of disruptive editing, POV pushing, and the use of LLM-generated content to flood talk pages, including a failure to comply with an admin's request to self-revert.

• Neutral user123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Declared previous accounts (for histories, talkpages and block logs):

• Trueandreal123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-48316-87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-48086-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User "Neutral user123" (NU) has been engaging in disruptive editing since they started editing 3 weeks ago. A prior ANI (§ IP account disruptive editing, POV pushing) was archived without a formal closure. In the ANI thread, I had written "This is beyond "interest" in a single topic; it appears to be NHTBAE."; and admin The Bushranger wrote "... is proof you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. Given that editors with 'Truth' in their usernames are all but invariably here not to push actual verifiable facts but instead WP:THETRUTH, I support a block."; and editor GreyZoneLife wrote "I'd like to add that further evidence of NHTBAE is...", etc.

NU has continued, and escalated, their disruptive behavior since ANI #1.

NU spent the next 5 days POV-PUSHING the use of concepts found only in a single contentious primary source, writing more than 1,700 words in 11 edits on Talk:Office of Special Affairs § Garry Scarff accusation is incomplete. One other editor, arriving late in the thread, agreed "the paragraph is clear as it stands...", then wrote "one option is...". NU took that latter suggestion and made an article edit with edit summary "Update in accordance to GreyZoneLife's recommendation (see Talk Page). More updates can be made." I reverted it as "phrasing is not supported by the cited source (Hamburg report); violates WP:OR".

NU then branched out onto 5 other articles (psychiatry and mental health topics), posting 500-word LLM content inside 2 articles (diffs: A1, A2) and long LLM-generated essays on 5 talk pages (diffs: T1, T2, T3, T4, T5)—for a total of 6,000 words over the span of 4 hours. Admin Femke confronted NU on their user talk page where NU at first denied LLM use, then admitted to using an LLM "to find sources on the web". When asked "did you use llms to generate any text you posted on Wikipedia?", NU admitted "I did use LLMs here, but since the text is quite short..." and went on to disagree with the policy, stated his use was justified, and suggested the content "can be quickly reviewed by others and verified". When pressed by Femke to self-revert the LLM content, NU eventually reverted only the two mainspace article edits, while leaving the 5 talkpage essays, and added "I do not think these should be deleted" and "I think it is real important that such concerns stay in Talk Pages". Femke had originally requested: "Could you please remove the very long AI-generated comments you posted on various talk pages".

These two threads demonstrate an escalating pattern of not being here to build an encyclopedia and POV-PUSHING following the first ANI.

Context: The transition from editing Office of Special Affairs (a Scientology division for public relations) to promoting Scientology's anti-psychiatry discourse is consistent with known patterns of Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia and suggests this is a single-purpose account (SPA).

Given the continued disruption and the refusal to fully comply with admin Femke's request to remove AI-generated content, I request a block of Neutral user123.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:39, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Listen, I am not an academic. But if there is an imbalance of neutrality on Wikipedia, it is appropriate that I indicate it on Wikipedia talk pages. I raise valid points. I complied exceptionally well with Femke's request, reverting changes to articles, twice, myself, that no one else was reverting, and only using Talk Pages. Grorp is quite biased, as can be readily viewed from previous conversations. In the case of the edit of OSA article, I did not read the source, and I assumed the change of GreyZoneLife was accurate and appropriate. It was not apparently - that is fine. The admin thanked me for reverting. The dislike of using Talk Pages to suggest real and serious issues, suggests absence of neutrality on the part of Grorp. Neutral user123 (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Femke requested that Neutral user123 "please remove the very long AI-generated comments you posted on various talk pages?" and none of those talk page posts have been removed, only the content added to articles, so the incompliant LLM usage remains.

All of Neutral users123's contributions have been related either to Scientology (including one edit outside the Scientology category, where a couple of lines were dedicated to Scientology's founder: diff) or anti-psychiatry edits/edit requests across medical articles and the article on mass shootings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_shooting#Possible_treatment-related_contribution_should_be_covered). Scientology is anti-psychiatry.

This contribution pattern, plus the prior use of insider Scientology terminology usage, is what gives the impression of pro-scientology POV pushing. GreyZoneLife (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh no, not at all. Who said I was 'anti' psychiatry? As I have said in perhaps dozens of different places on Wikipedia now, I am trying to foster neutrality in narrative and content.

I want pro and anti psychiatry content. I want pro and anti Scientology content. I want pro and anti other content. But I want nuance and good sourcing, which Wikipedia can often lack. And I want accurate information. For example, on some Scientology articles, it said "Galactic" (good guys) instead of "Marcab" (bad guys), which is a little like saying that a Christian is pro-Satan instead of anti-Satan. This got handled, thankfully. But this is an example of systemic oversight that can linger for years.

Again, I am neutral and have no bias. I want to correct systemic and individual bias. Neutral user123 (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm deducing, based on the LLM outputs you chose to add to the various talk pages, that you're anti-psychiatry / aiming to add negative bias to psychiatric treatment content in articles:

(Article - summary of proposed changes)

American Psychiatric Association - removal of praise language and expand sections to include historical criticism

Mass shooting - addition of "adverse effects of psychiatric medication" to the mental health section

Major depressive disorder - addition of source analysis to "document a potentially important limitation of the evidence base"

Antidepressant - various changes to call into question the conclusions/recommendations currently in the article. The LLM change summary tellingly begins: "Rather than adding a large "criticism" section, I would suggest..."

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor - expansion of existing adverse effects sections and a review of sources used in these sections and the addition of a further adverse effect

LLM outputs such as 1) "My concern is not that the article should be written as an anti-SSRI article.", 2) "I am not suggesting that the article should be rewritten as an anti-APA article", 3) "I do not mean that the article should be rewritten to say that antidepressants "do not work"', 4) "I am not proposing that the article conclude that antidepressants are ineffective or that long-term trials do not exist", 5) "I am not suggesting that Wikipedia state that psychiatric drugs cause mass shootings in general" make it clear that the LLM prompt was requesting a critical view, otherwise the output wouldn't include this type of language. These "I'm not doing x..."  wouldn't be needed if the prompt and resulting output were truly neutral. GreyZoneLife (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The articles as such are already not neutral. They are partial medical PR fluff. I want substance of praise and substance of criticism. This is needed for proper encyclopedia building. Neutral user123 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I just asked ChatGPT what it thought of the state of the Wikipedia SSRI article - for an external opinion. No customization or anything was used.

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.

So this is a neutral assessment of SSRI article and by extension medical Wikipedia

Prompt

How biased is this article in favor of one-side, or one-narrative, or certain institutions?

Does this include pro and critical sources fairly?

Would you say this is appropriate for Wikipedia in its current state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor

Response

I reviewed the current article, its recent revision history, the Talk-page sourcing discussion, and several newer systematic reviews/meta-analyses. My overall assessment is:

The article is not strongly or crudely pro-SSRI, but it does have a mild-to-moderate tilt toward the mainstream clinical/institutional narrative in its framing. Its larger problem is uneven updating: some sections reflect modern evidence reasonably well, while important adverse-effect and discontinuation sections rely on noticeably older evidence.

So I would regard it as broadly appropriate for Wikipedia, but not yet a particularly clean or fully up-to-date example of medical neutrality.

....

Where I do see a tilt

The top-level framing is more confident and mainstream than the underlying evidence discussion.

The article's opening effectively says:

widely prescribed + first-line + more effective than placebo

and its later “Controversy” section says SSRIs remain “widely used and effective for depression,” while presenting overprescription and medicalization as matters that “remain debated.”

That is defensible, but it compresses a fairly complicated evidence dispute into a conventional clinical summary.

The article itself contains a more nuanced picture: antidepressants can outperform placebo on average, while the magnitude of average benefit can be small and the clinical meaningfulness of that difference can be debated. Those are not mutually exclusive claims, but the headline framing gives the conventional interpretation more rhetorical weight than the controversy section does.

In other words, I see more of a “mainstream framing bias” than an outright factual bias.

End of Response

Neutral user123 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia deserves a "mainstream framing bias". Wikipedia is the source of truth and knowledge. We deserve better, all sides. Neutral user123 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia is that we as editors only include what is covered by reliable published sources, giving appropriate weight based on how sources cover the topic (wp:due) so it would make sense that articles reflect mostly mainstream views.

In any case for that review chatgpt read the talk page which included the prior LLM output so that introduces bias.

I remain unconvinced that you are neutral regarding Scientology and psychiatry based on your LLM usage and targeting of these topics, including articles not directly related (the L Ron Hubbard edit in the Quackery article and the mental health section of the Mass Shooting article) which would not have been discovered by simply browsing the Scientology or medical categories.

I will leave space now for other editors and admins to contribute. GreyZoneLife (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Is it fair that only mainstream views would be included? Wikipedia is not a PR company or tool for simply one group. I would suggest in such cases simply adding more reliable published sources (scientific studies, meta-reviews, etc.) so that no one source has undue weight, and it becomes the average of a bunch of sources.

Grorp's edit to the Quackery page definitely was better and more neutral than the previous one. He addressed my concerns in effect with his edit. And there are non-Scientologist psychiatrists who acknowledge the relationship of Mass Shootings to psychiatric drugs, for example former FDA psychiatrist Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring, MD who routinely talks about such. This is a known viewpoint and critique of the effects of psychiatric medications, not some fringe conspiracy only held by one group. Neutral user123 (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the source of truth and knowledge No, it is not the source of truth. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Not the 'source', per se, but it should present a balanced picture Neutral user123 (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't do that either, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

As should be readily evident from that I've said and from other responses, I am advocating for quality scientific studies and meta-reviews from authoritative sources, as well as other high-quality sources. Claims that "the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones; conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history" has no part whatsoever in what I am advocating for, and should not be construed as such. In fact, if we can eliminate such narratives, narratives like "chemical imbalance" without qualification (if present on Wikipedia), and similar ideas, which are not science and believed by no psychiatrists at all, such would improve the quality of Wikipedia and make it a more well-sourced, scientific medium. Neutral user123 (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

You're advocating for including AI-slop and medical sources that do not meet basic requirements as given in WP:MEDRS, in blatant opposition to Wikipedia's policies, in an attempt to have a 'balanced picture' - a goal which you are now aware that the Wikipedia community has specifically rejected. You don't have to agree with these articles, but you do have to respect policies and stop trying to add this stuff. MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I never even once advocated for AI slop at all. I never said 'balanced picture', this is a strawman and alteration of what I said. Neutral user123 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I never said 'balanced picture'
What? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:17, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean "balanced" in a strict sense, but I meant in accordance to what Wikipedia wants. The article linked to "False Balance", as if to say I was advocating "False Balance", when I have been repeatedly advocating for things that are not "false balance". Anyone reading these comments can readily see I am wanting more balance (in accordance to all of Wikipedia's rules) with only good sources. Not "false" balance. Neutral user123 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

You clearly said "balanced picture" in your reply to The Bushranger further up. Kindly do not try to gaslight other editors. At this point I would support a block for WP:NOTHERE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:52, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are having comprehension issues. I said "balanced picture" in a metaphorical sense. It is not gaslighting. Neutral user123 (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, I haven't heard a word from you that you are here to build an encylopedia. You are nitpicking over the tiniest and most irrelevant pedantry. "Balanced picture" is not, to my understanding, formal Wikipedia speak, but you are strangely attempting to treat it as if it is a literal, specific thing. I could have said "balanced scene", "balanced presentation", etc.

You could try addressing my _actual_ comments and critiques about various things. But you are seeking problems simply for the sake of problems Neutral user123 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that you decided to pick up on something someone originally quoted you on and asserted that it is metaphorical when it is something you literally typed at 11:57 UTC on Sept 27. Either you're actually ignorant about that, in which case I would sardonically also consider WP:CIR as grounds for a time-out from the project, or you're being willfully ignorant as part of nonproductive conduct that doesn't need to be on here. Others have raised concerns such that I don't need to repeat them, but claiming that you never used a certain phrase when anyone scrolling up can see that it is in fact what you used is dishonest and is a strong indicator of chronic trouble down the line. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:27, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I was saying I didn't say the presentation of a phrase, not the literal words. The context the person was saying I said that "phrase" was incorrect and taken out of context. Indeed, I doubt they understood it at all. As a general fact in communication, "I didn't say X" often means "I didn't say X unqualified and out of context."

It is absolutely not dishonest.

Speaking of context, I strongly urge readers to recognize the points that I am trying to make as a whole, and not take things out of context and nitpick on certain phrases. This is utterly, utterly unproductive. I have yet to see indications that the people trying to argue with me have any even faint semblance of impartiality, or productive disposition. This is all nitpicking. I haven't managed to even get fractions of concepts in edgewise here. And I have been praising people and trying to foster a healthy atmosphere. Neutral user123 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if people didn't focus on me and focused on the criticisms and commentary of articles I have made. Right now I am not editing articles. If someone were editing articles, then that might seem to be problematic. I haven't been posting.

This is much more productive than trying to argue with me for no reason, and ignoring what has been shared Neutral user123 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't push a point of view. I want all points of view, to be present on articles. This makes the articles more neutral and richer and more useful in general Neutral user123 (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I want all points of view, to be present on articles
Unfortunately, not all views merit mentioning on Wikipedia; WP:FRINGE is a content guideline that is abided by frequently. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

NU's latest admission reinforces the point that they are using LLMs to burden other editors with the labor of verification rather than doing the work themselves. In the five-day OSA discussion, NU presented numerous primary and low grade sources. NU is the one who presented the Hamburg report—the only independent RS in the thread—which they now confess they did not even read. I spent several hours deciphering and integrating that report into the article based on NU's insistence.

The thread with admin Femke confirms this intent to outsource the work of editing. NU stated: "such as myself can raise unique points for the experts to address"; "I have certainly used LLMs to find sources on the web, which can be of use"; "I did use LLMs here, but since the text is quite short, I feel this can be quickly reviewed by others and verified"; "My purpose is to assist others to improve the encyclopedia."; "We need an expert in this subject here. I assumed you would be an expert."; and "I think my greatest value for Wikipedia is in finding sources for others."

NU's claim that they complied exceptionally well with Femke's request is misleading, as they reverted only 2 of the 7 AI-generated posts, and downplays their failure to comply by suggesting others should have done it instead ("that no one else was reverting").

This is a clear waste of valuable editor resources.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:54, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Grorp, I don't mean to be personal, but I know you manage Scientology-related articles and Carriage driving articles on Wikipedia. For long durations of time you have neglected even BASIC fixes about one of your main domains, which are now fixed on Wikipedia.

The Galactic vs Marcab differences and non-existent OT levels that can be debunked with the tiniest shred of observation is an indication of poor management and review, by yourself and others.

As I have said in perhaps dozens of different places on Wikipedia now, I am trying to foster neutrality in narrative and content.

I want pro- and anti- content. But I want nuance and good sourcing, which Wikipedia can often lack. And I want accurate information.

In regards to the subject of "editor time", previous work done has been a clear waste of valuable editor resources and moreover and more relevantly has misled the public at large (even more relevant). A tiny bit of Wikipedia editor time to fix glaring falsehoods is much better used than tiny edits which fix nothing.

I recall seeing OT 17 Telekenetic Psychic Powers Unleashed, some years ago on Wikipedia, and this has festered ever since. This might have been a decade or so ago when I saw this. It only got worse with even more fabricated unsourced "levels". Completely unmaintained by everyone. Neutral user123 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

For context: The Scientology topic area contains several hundred articles and has historically been a high risk area for POV disputes. A high profile 2009 ARBCOM case, documented at Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, resulted in the area being designated a contentious topic until 2022. The topic has had limited editor activity for many years, which makes large scale disruptive behavior more impactful and harder to manage.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I am well aware of the former controversy, including the banning and unbanning dates of the Church. I am not in the Church. Nor are they "behind" me. On the topic of large scale disruption, I don't think the banning of the Church itself and the banning of some anti-Scientology editors should be sufficient for the chronic defacement of basic Scientology articles, such as Operating Thetan, etc. Imagine if this were the case for Buddhism or Freemasonry or some other tradition. It would be quickly reverted. But Scientology is "smaller" and more poorly understood, so people are less quick to "fix" it evidently.

This is what prompted me to make this account in the first place.

On a second note, Medical Wikipedia is undermaintained and people would be great heroes if they put in the time and dedication in order to update it and put it in tiptop shape. I only became interested in medical Wikipedia because the Scientology articles seemed to be in a relatively good shape (thanks to the valuable work of Grorp). But as Femke said, articles can need a new coat of paint sometimes. It would be wonderful if experts and semi-experts (I am neither of these) could put in the time for radical transformation. This would be a service to us all. Neutral user123 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

NU's ANI responses contain many contradictions within close proximity, for example calling Scientology articles 'chronically defaced' and then 'in relatively good shape', or calling editors biased and then praising them. The patterns of inconsistent explanations and dramatic superlatives (e.g., "the tiniest shred", "glaring falsehoods", "great heroes", "radical transformation") are both characteristic of LLM-generated text. NU's explanations read more like stitched-together LLM fragments than human-reasoned positions.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:18, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I definitely wrote both 'chronically defaced' and 'relatively good shape' both myself, without any LLM inspiration. They were chronically defaced in the past, this is self-evident, for years. Now they are in relatively good shape. This doesn't take an LLM to reason in either case.

Every single one of the instances you gave "the tiniest shred", "glaring falsehoods", "great heroes", "radical transformation" - were my speech without any LLM influence or even inspiration.

Grorp, I seriously expect you to understand nuance and not resort to meaningless words like "contradiction" - an admission to failing to understand the grey areas in a given topic. Unlike you, I see the good you have done and the bad. I haven't used LLMs here for this. It's a characteristic of impartiality, not so called "contradiction". Neutral user123 (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Of course. But if there are high quality legal documents, or high quality scientific studies from respected sources, these have grounds to be considered possibly relevant. Neutral user123 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Neutral user123 From what I've read here, you would really do well to read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality on Wikipedia does not mean we arbitrarily maintain a "balance" of viewpoints. It means we do not favour any particular viewpoint arbitrarily. We do however reapect due weight, which means for example we respect authoritative medical sources a lot more than we respect HolisticMommy's blog about homeopathic medicine. Go in the comments section of any social media post about space and you'll find a depressingly large number of people who believe the Earth is flat and videos from space are faked. We do not take those opinions as seriously as well-verified facts. We do not equally platform all sources as if they have equal weight. Athanelar (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned before in another comment "Wikipedia is not a PR company or tool for simply one group. I would suggest in such cases simply adding more reliable published sources (scientific studies, meta-reviews, etc.) so that no one source has undue weight, and it becomes the average of a bunch of sources." Neutral user123 (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

That is precisely what we strive to do - but what you've been doing is arbitrarily adding opposing viewpoints, which is not the same thing. Like I said, please read WP:FALSEBALANCE as it very well addresses this issue. Athanelar (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I haven't been arbitrarily adding opposing viewpoints. There is a systemic lack of neutrality in the articles, which can and should be addressed by quality studies and sources that do exist. Even a “mainstream framing bias”, as opposed to deferring to science and quality sources, is an issue. Neutral user123 (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

You might personally think it is an issue, but that 'issue' is baked into the Wikipedia policies - that is, the Wikipedia community does not think it is an issue. While you're looking at the links people are giving you, also have a link at Wikipedia:Academic bias and Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It is too reductive to state that Wikipedia's community thinks it is an issue or not an issue. Or that things, left to their own devices in the past, have worked. My critique is precisely that multiple articles could use some adjusting. Neutral user123 (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Your critique runs directly counter to the policies you're being linked to here. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it is written. It is up to you to correct that misunderstanding and edit according to policy - it is not up to Wikipedia to conform to your critiques. If you are unwilling or unable to edit according to the policies the Wikipedia community has established, this may not the website for you. MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

"Your critique runs directly counter to the policies you're being linked to here." Unequivocally no, that is not the case. I responded to your other message in detail.

And it is a sign of respect and attention to the articles to defer to more knowledgeable sources. I responded to your other misunderstanding of what I have been saying in detail. Neutral user123 (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I fully understand that you are saying, but nonetheless I believe what you are saying is simply incorrect. MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

You've been addressing strawmen that are not and are alterations of what I have been saying.

Aditionally, the idea that "Wikipedia naturally works as an emergent phenomenon by itself organically" is overly reductive and dangerous.

For example, in the earlier work I was doing about which I am mostly satisfied with the state of things now (Scientology articles on Wikipedia), there were some glaring incorrect statements that had existed for probably more than a decade which got correct due to my recommendations. The community fixed these.

I seek to assist people (when they have the time and will), to update Wikipedia to conform better to its own standards. This has use of course. Neutral user123 (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I doubt that those who read this discussion and look at what you've been putting on psychiatry articles will agree that I am 'addressing strawmen'. At this point I support a block since Neutral user123 is unwilling or unable to understand and follow Wikipedia's policies. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I have followed all of Wikipedia's policies. I only posted on Talk pages; the two edits I did to actual articles I myself reverted - because others (medical experts, academics, etc.) are more qualified to edit the pages. You are 'addressing strawmen' for sure. Every assertion you have claimed has been a misunderstanding of the situation and innacurate. I never claimed for 'False Balance' by introducing poor scholarship, etc. The articles are imbalanced in their current state. I was adding sources that would improve the False Balance. Without modifying things myself. And assisting others with sources that they could use or not use at will to improve the overall article quality. Nothing I advocated for was Fringe. At all. Neutral user123 (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Support a block for POV pushing and likely AI usage. The string of comments above beginning with but it should present a balanced picture followed a few hours later by I never said 'balanced picture', this is a strawman and alteration of what I said. is strongly suggestive of chatbot usage but in any case is the kind of mix of dishonesty, incompetence, and trolling that should be dealt with by an indefinite block at the earliest possible moment. --JBL (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

It was a misinterpretation of what I meant by "balanced picture", which is not even standard phrasing (it was me using descriptive language to express what I meant). It was not chat bot usage at all. How would I be trolling? No such language sugggests this. Are you able to perceive the root of my intentions here? I do not think you are; hence rhetoric such as this which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Neutral user123 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, a block would not demonstrate anything of substance, and would be a futile effort. There would be no good effect to it. And of course would be wholly unwarranted. Neutral user123 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

If one accepts the premise that you are editing disruptively (and I do accept that premise) a block would end the disruption. How would that be futile? MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it would demonstrate nothing to anyone. Also, I am not editing articles. I just posted on a few talk pages. This isn't disruptive. It is helpful.

A hypothetical block would debase Wikipedia, degrade critical thinking and reason, please no one, and it wouldn't inhibit me in the slightest from editing articles (which, again, I was and am not even doing), nor would it teach me or others any lesson in the slightest, nor would it maintain order

It would make Wikipedia look like a PR fluff tool.

Again, utterly futile, having no consequence whatsoever, and would be a bad look. Neutral user123 (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, I am not editing articles. I just posted on a few talk pages. - That is a plainly false statement. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I edited two articles, then quickly reverted them of my own choice. It is a plainly true statement. Neutral user123 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

You have edited four articles, all of which have been reverted, two by yourself and two by other people. That's not even counting the four or so other articles you edited under declared previous identities. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The ones by other people led to a better result. I am fine with that. Neutral user123 (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Could this be a veiled threat to sock? Borgenland (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

No, it is not. Neutral user123 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week for the constantly changing stories. Probably should have been indef, and I won't object if someone wants to change to that instead of seeing what happens in a week. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Given all of the above, and the fact that their unblock request flatly said "I don't intend to make edits", I'd support an indef per WP:NOTHERE. I'd do it myself but I'm nominally involved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Not to mention using the unblock request to make a totally irrelevant username change. Borgenland (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I've seen other people get confused by which unblock request to use in the wizard. Haven't checked myself lately, but... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is something that is almost routine now. For some reason I'm assuming the unblock wizard is defaulting to the "you need a new username" option? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

In the meantime, is it possible to remove the 5 LLM posts in the talk pages? GreyZoneLife (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Unresponsive user with dismissive attitude on two TA's

• ~2026-48060-74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-49114-52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of the edits by these TA's in the main namespace to 1960s/70s film/music articles have been fully or mostly reverted, by several people along with myself. I was willing to extend them some good faith because I thought they were at least trying to add sources per the warnings on their talk pages , but then, in response to my message saying that AI is not a good ref on Wikipedia, they said "yes. It is a reliable source for everything.yeagh yeagh yeagh!" and they responded similarly when I gave them a warning about plot summaries, along with a couple of instances of edit-warring without explanations . I'm not sure if stronger words from others or a short sharp block (perhaps also involving their /64 range at least, but their IP is very dynamic) would be best, but they don't seem to be responding well to warnings so I think something needs to be done. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Now they're just getting silly: "i am a professional detailing [sic] wanting to complete the missing links to the articles. Yeagh!!!!!!! Yeagh!!!!!!! Yeagh!!!!!!!!!!!!". Graham87 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok that was kind of funny (committing to the Yeagh!! so often lol) but yea that's not appropriate, perhaps either the IPs can be blocked for a day or so or page protection requests could be put in? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, a block would probably be best. They're still going, so I gave both TA's a final warning with {{uw-plotsum4}}. Graham87 (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yea at this point they even acknowledged your warnings on their talk page, a block is easily warranted at this point. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked both users as WP:NOTHERE. Please ping me if issues resume via another TA or on the range. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Rapidfirreee again

After being taken to ANI last month and being blocked for edit warring, Rapidfirreee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now resorted to personal attacks when challenged for adding unsourced information .

I feel like some kind of action has to be done as his behavior seemingly hasn't changed since he was last taken to ANI. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 20:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

And yet again he continues to be aggressive, not even looking at the sources he's reinstating, which still don't confirm any of the tifosi mentions. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 20:22, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

It is not at all as he says, he is just a clown who does not contribute anything and writes nothing!!!

The sources are available. But why doesn't he create the page for the 6 Hours of Fuji? and comes to mock on Monza's page. Rapidfirreee (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

the sources:

Rapidfirreee (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Rapidfirreee (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

https://www.acisport.it/it/acisport/news/comunicati/94463/l'autodromo-nazionale-monza-ospiter%C3%A0-dal-6-all'8-novembre-la-prova-finale-del-fia-wec-2026 Rapidfirreee (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

https://aci.gov.it/comunicati-stampa/a-monza-il-gran-finale-del-wec-2026/ Rapidfirreee (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

None of those sources say that the events was well received by Italian and Ferrari fans. They contain announcements and details about the events, but nothing that says anything about the fans reactions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:07, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Sources are completely ignored, even statements from official bodies. There are others, I'll add them. Do I have to include 18 sources? I'll wait for the event and then we'll talk about it. About which I won't add anything more. Rapidfirreee (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Sources are not being ignored. You only need one source, but it must say italian and Ferrari fans have received it well. You can't use multiple different sources and say that together they show that it's been well received by fans. The source must directly support the content you want to add. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

"The introduction of the event into the championship was very well received by the Italian fans and Ferrari supporters".

For heaven's sake, let's not write it anymore, I won't write it anymore, what a waste of time, because the Japanese friend gets depressed. Poor thing, he gets depressed, let's not talk about Monza, today he says nothing because they triumphed at Fuji.

He came to bring me here, because instead of helping to create the 2026 6 Hours of Fuji page, he preferred to bore me. Today there is the article thanks to someone else and not to user:Road Atlanta Turn 5, which wastes time and resources in this fruitless discussion. Rapidfirreee (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Seems like an indef would be better here sooner rather than later. --JBL (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, yes, for heaven's sake, let’s not write about Ferrari, or they’ll get angry. Then we do not write about Monza, I no longer write about Monza. In fact, I tell the president of the ACI, never say what you said again, otherwise the Japanese will be offended. Rapidfirreee (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I agree, they seem unable to understand what is being said or what is required of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'm not Japanese nor have I lived there. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 18:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

So everything is clearer to me now, indeed before today I had never happened to argue or fight with a Japanese person. So clearly the 6 Hours of Fuji page isn't of your interest. And so obviously you found yourself on the Monza one.

But maybe you're a Toyota supporter. Rapidfirreee (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

"The introduction of the event into the championship was very well received by the Italian fans and Ferrari supporters."

In fact, next time, and I don't believe there will be a next time, I will write that we Italians all cry over the WEC race in Monza, and it would have been better if the 8 Hours of Bahrain race had taken place under the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. For 2027, while I previously hoped it could be confirmed for next year, today I instead sincerely hope they don't hold it; you do not deserve such a spectacle, you deserve nothing, and you can go fuck!

"Road Atlanta Turn 5" you are an slacker who just wastes my time! You're just a 20-year-old idiot! Rapidfirreee (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Road Atlanta Turn 5 – Rapidfirreee's behavior and editing has not changed despite two prior blocks. Apart from the edit warring, the edits still contain the same non-neutral, almost promotional wording, generally for various Italian groups (Ferrari, Lancia, etc):

• Special:Diff/1376825051 and Special:Diff/1376888741: "The introduction of the event into the championship was very well received by the Italian fans and Ferrari supporters."
• Special:Diff/1375037952: Yet another paragraph about Italian car fans, matching edits that caused the previous block.
• Special:Diff/1375201071: "Lovallo died, beloved by all, in his home in Avigliano".

Edits with sources that don't back up the statements:

• Special:Diff/1375133221: "Italy's public debt continued to show a declining trend" is completely false - the first graph in the linked source shows debt going up, not down.
• Special:Diff/1376366350: The Vice article has no mention of the game's critical reception.
• Special:Diff/1375203299: The CNN video has no mention of Russian financial support or anything at all about China.
• Special:Diff/1376347426/1376586953: The CNBC article has no mention of Stellantis. Previously removed by @Gryfia in this edit.

Adding entire sections without sources:

• Special:Diff/1375618790 and Special:Diff/1375627340/1375630015
• Special:Diff/1375320934

Iiii I I I (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

There are sources, and they are reliable, coming from official bodies and company statements.

"Lovallo died, beloved by all, in his home in Avigliano" is a centenarian of 112 years who passed away few day ago, according to the statements of the mayor of the town and the community. Translated from Italian.

Certainly, some sources can be improved. However, they are verified and genuine. I think I will add further and more precise ones for what I have already written. As for the other matters, I believe I will not add much more. Rapidfirreee (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

And then, right after saying this, you made a bunch of poorly sourced edits to Piero Frescobaldi.

The sources include a forum discussion and a video that does not match 90% of what you're citing it for. You're still adding WP:PEACOCK language not supported by sources. The idea of sourcing is to provide sources that directly support the text of articles, not to just vaguely go around with whatever it is that you want to say. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

It takes time to find other sources—perhaps more precise and comprehensive ones. Unfortunately, the Italian pilot died young and was forgotten; this isn't a current news story with contemporary press coverage. One has to patiently piece together his biography and career. It requires time—time that you are making me waste. Rapidfirreee (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

That’s fine - there is no deadline for edits to be made, you can take all the time you need. However, you must have the sources that verify the entirety of your edit before you make the edit. You cannot make an edit with missing or no sources, and promise to come back later to fix it. You provide the sources at the time you make your edit.

If, as I think you may be, you are saying that you don’t yet have the sources to back up your edits then that’s even more concerning - that tells us you’re adding original research. The content you add to Wikipedia must come FROM sources, not your own knowledge. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

It’s not a matter of personal research; this is the biography of a driver who died prematurely sixty years ago. Yet, his story is noteworthy: he raced on circuits—albeit with tragic results, as he lost his life there—and in rallies, where he achieved some success, all while competing alongside many other famous drivers of the era. It's just out of curiosity, since there were articles in French and German, but English was missing. Rapidfirreee (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Then the question is very simple - do you have sources to verify everything you wrote? Because as of right now, others have shown you aren’t adding them to articles and you’re stating that finding them takes time.

If you already have them, then add them to the articles when you make edits.

If you don’t have sources to verify the content you’re writing, then the content you’re writing is by definition original research, as it is based on your own knowledge instead of a reliable source. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:59, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

And make sure these sources are reliable, independent, constitute significant coverage of the subject, and actually directly support the text you wish to add. Your sourcing has been really problematic; even when there's something that could be used as a source, there's a tendency for your source to not have anything to do with the cite. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Re: "Lovallo died, beloved by all, in his home in Avigliano": The issue here is not the source for his death, the issue is the phrase "beloved by all", and if you do not immediately recognize this then you should not be editing. Iiii I I I (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

But if the mayor, who is the head of a community, says that he was loved by everyone, well-liked, and expresses words of closeness to the family, and this is reported in national newspapers, IT CANNOT BE WRITTEN!!! BECAUSE IT IS NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC!! Is it biased? It bothers you, so we will not write it.

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2026/09/17/e-morto-a-112-anni-vitantonio-lovallo-detto-ziton-era-luomo-piu-vecchio-ditalia-ha-continuato-a-lavorare-nei-campi-fino-a-106-anni/8509215/2/ Rapidfirreee (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

https://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/morto-vitantonio-lovallo-uomo-piu-anziano-italia-112-anni-avigliano_116652255-202602k.shtml Rapidfirreee (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Rest assured, I will no longer write anything about centenarians, for the less you know, the better. Rapidfirreee (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of nice Chinese propaganda, but nobody argues about that, and it doesn't get removed. We let it stay—especially regarding Chinese cars and those beloved jumping robots!!! Everyone there is happy and delighted to align with the Chinese Communist Party and contribute to Chinese propaganda! Rapidfirreee (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

And there it is. I think we’ve finally hit WP:NOTHERE. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:46, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Go read the pages about Chinese AI models. They look amazing—but the moment you try to add something made in Europe, it vanishes instantly, wiped out. It is immediately removed. Rapidfirreee (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

what's that have to do with anything? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that Rapidfirreee may not be in a position where they can thoughtfully and substantively contribute to Wikipedia. I think the healthiest option is assisting them in separating themselves from the project. Once they are able to edit in accordance with policy, they can seek the standard offer. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Do not worry, soon, also because they always find me at fault anyway, they will permanently restrict me from editing anything. Because however sincerely and in good faith I explain my reasons, they still find me at fault. They accused me over a sentence: 'The introduction of the event into the championship was very well received by the Italian fans and Ferrari supporters' Instead of thanking me for creating the page, following standards and style. They're ungrateful.

Then they even go rummaging through other things, the centenarian, the forgotten pilot Frescobaldi, etc. All things established and verified with reliable sources. They stress you out to write the articles, which should be a pleasure, a free contribution. If you don’t immediately add some damn references, they won’t even let you finish the sentence and will delete your article. No thanks, I’m done wasting my precious time. Rapidfirreee (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

And despite literally just having sourcing of the Piero Frescobaldi article questioned, Rapidfirree has restored the edit. For citing Frescobaldi remaining an driver for Scuderi until 1964, the fatal accident, and the detailed description of the death, we've been provided a one-sentence comment in a video archive During the race, driver Piero Frescobaldi was involved in a fatal accident and the directory of the archive itself which lists 14,968 pages of videos. At this point, Combine this with their history, their hostility here, and the lack of seeming to care If you don’t immediately add some damn references, they won’t even let you finish the sentence and will delete your article. No thanks, I’m done wasting my precious time. and I think that sanctions are necessary.

Proposal: Rapidfirreee is indefinitely blocked from article space.

Support as proposer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Slam-dunk Support from me, especially after the unwarranted incivility and personal attacks. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 20:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not even sure why this needs a proposal. They seem unable and unwilling to understand what is required of them, and have been taking uncivil swings at other editors. Surely an admin can deal with this without having to rely on a proposal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:17, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments like this are clearly unacceptable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:39, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom, really strange thread. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The indef given works for me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indef as not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Going through Rapidfirreee's page creations, I discovered that 1600th Anniversary of the Foundation of Venice was previously created by Peter39c (talk · contribs). It seems that this account is a sock of Peter39c: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter39c/Archive, along with Dorian88A (talk · contribs), which makes the same types of edits and has received the same warnings (see talk page). --Iiii I I I (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good catch, the WP:DUCK is strong to Peter39c and I'll reblock as a sock. Dorian88A's editing pattern is a little different but the writing style is close enough that will also block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

POV pushing by User:Denniss

Denniss (talk · contribs) falsely accuse me of vandalism and insisted on the insertion of the non-neutral terms "regime" and "terrorist" into the article BRD (Germany). He has a history of mass reverting things he dislike. ~2026-43353-76 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:Denniss. Reason: OP didnt notify. /usr/bin/owuh $ (💬 | she/they) 16:14, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43353-76 neither of you have used the article's talk page to discuss the wording. This is a content dispute, please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The temp editor is correct. Denniss reverted back to describing East Germany as a "regime" with "terrorists" three times (Special:Diff/1376328651, Special:Diff/1376800874, Special:Diff/1377006539), and then inappropriately accused the temp editor of vandalism with {{uw-vandalism4im}} when the edits were reverted. Even if we don't call the former a conduct dispute, the latter definitely makes it one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree. @Denniss is engaging in flatly disruptive editing contrary to MOS:TERRORIST and then using template warnings to try and prevent those disruptive edits from being removed. While legitimate content disputes should be discussed at article talk there's not much that needs to be said to them beyond "please immediately desist." Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

UPE, LOUTSOCK, and bears!

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

---

Please bear (har har) with me as I try to untangle this for any admins who might to check my work:

• MtkCwoinyuu creates the page Labs Companies on 27 August, which ~2026-38633-70 polishes and completes on 30 August.
• After an AI tag was appended to the page on 15 September, Betterlines creates their account and makes promotionally toned revisions to the article later that day.
• On 26 September, MtkCwoinyuu moves the article to Draft:Labs Companies.
• Betterlines objects, claiming on Draft:Labs Companies that this draftification was the result of a failure to pay an individual (consider oversighting that bit that links off-project).
• ~2026-51844-74 edit wars with Betterlines to get the mainspace and draft pages deleted.
• -74 improperly tries to start an AfD on 27 September, but without actually creating the nomination page or offering any rationale, lending some credence to the theory that MtkCwoinyuu and -74 were removing the article from the mainspace in response to a failure to pay for UPE.
• Betterlines and KristinaPearling (account created 27 September) both object in the AfD, which I terminated as a procedural close due to no rationale provided. Both make LLM-written comments across several locations in relation to this.

My basic conclusions are as follows:

1. MtkCwoinyuu is doing UPE and LOUTSOCK. When a client fails to pay for an article MtkCwoinyuu creates, MtkCwoinyuu moves it from the mainspace.
2. Betterlines contracted to have Labs Companies created. When MtkCwoinyuu draftified the article, they fought the draftification. There is private stuff that I found that corroborates this, but it's not appropriate for sharing here.
3. KristinaPearling is a meat- or sockpuppet of Betterlines. Both accounts have also been using LLMs to tip the scales in discussions where they have a COI.

My preferred remedy here would be to indef the lot, speedily delete Labs Companies and Draft:Labs Companies as UPE promotional LLM slop, and remind ourselves how annoying paid editing and AI are. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Definitely weird stuff going on. The speculation about failure to pay seems possible to me but not confirmed. But there's definitely some kind of undisclosed paid editing going on grapesurgeon (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

How dramatic. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 17:38, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

It's highly unfortunate that conclusions can be drawn without evidence to substantiate the claim of LLM / AI slop. It's ironic because there was a time when Collegiate institutions didn't want Wiki as a reference, and us lovers of Wiki had to defend it. Now if someone has a simple / lengthy response to a subject matter it could be misconstrued as AI-slop. I do appreciate that @Pbritti attempted to be partial in judging the matter overall although the claims against me are are far reaching with zero proof.

a). I love tech so my goal in Wikipedia is to help to "better" the "lines" between articles on startups, entertainment and venture capital to the best of my abilities.

b). When I investigated the citations of Labs, they were citations that other wiki articles have utilized at great length; CB Insights being a major one.

c). I recommend the same as before: DO NOT delete Labs Companies, based purely on slim speculation.

Short of all of us video chatting, and watching each other type our responses, we could all be challenged with a baseless "LLM-generated" postulation. There are no tools that are reliable to measure this.

I contest any conclusions made about my character and intent without strong evidence., and remind ourselves how annoying it can be when we blindly (and with bias) judge each other.

Thanks! Betterlines (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Betterlines: You can see the link above to the very comment where you make the claim that a specific person was trying to delete the article due to a supposed failure to pay them for creating the article. Besides being against Wikipedia's privacy policy, that comment from you only makes sense if 1.) you are the party who supposedly failed to make payment 2.) you're editing on behalf of the party who supposedly failed to make payment or 3.) you're outright lying for. In each situation, you're doing something that is extraordinarily against policy. One thing that will never cease to impress me is how aghast editors who use LLMs to write are when other editors have no trouble identifying their LLM use. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

...especially given that they've been writing in remarkably better English than this, which also happens to be a laughably nonsensical claim, so probably wasn't AI-generated. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been around questionably skilled writers for too long, but I was able to parse that bit of organic human writing. Sadly, it doesn't exactly make them look any better. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Pbritti so you're exercising deductive reasoning in the incorrect fashion here to presuppose a mere "assumption" (of which you could definitely challenge the validity of, and I'd understand) leads credence to the 3 options you outlined as if there aren't other forms of optionality available for the reason I would post the comment.

I have been communicating and learning from several seasoned Editors and (of course) studying the community guidelines, TOS/U and PP to gain a deeper understanding of Wiki's standards. As a result I made an assumption (kind of like what you did). While it could be a bad call against @MtkCwoinyuu, I can own that and learn from it.

That does not in any way constitute substance to the claim/s you've ushered against me.

@Black Kite there is no such reality to "better English," as the language itself is known as a "mut" language, mixing an abundance of languages together to be known as "English." I could have grammatically challenged elements of your sentence:

The phrase "so probably wasn't AI-generated" is a dangling predicate. It lacks a clear subject. As written, the closest noun it attaches to is "a laughably nonsensical claim" meaning the claim wasn't AI-generated, when you actually mean the writing wasn't AI-generated but who is in English class.

As I stated in the same exchange you linked, the way I speak / type varies depending on my cognitive load at that moment. The greatest part is that your sarcasm amplifies the argument that most humans are biased and often times don't know how.

Truly. Betterlines (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

In light of the above, I reaffirm my position that this is an editor the project would do better without. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you feel that way. Betterlines (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Socks trying to save themselves be like. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 05:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1375054180 is one of the most blatant AI edit summaries I have seen in... well, in 15 seconds unfortunately, this shit is endemic Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Betterlines can I ask why you're so emotionally invested in whether this company has a Wikipedia article or not? Do you have a WP:COI that you can declare? If you do just please declare it, will save you from potentially being blocked from editing if we deduce that you did have a COI you were lying about. grapesurgeon (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

ah nvm they were blocked as a sockpuppet lol grapesurgeon (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for blocking that pair. I suppose that only leaves the UPE by MtkCwoinyuu and the LLM promotional nonsense. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The behavior does look weird, and MtkCwoinyuu seems to be adding promotional content via LLMs. WP:G15 only applies if the article has specific evidence of LLM usage, such as hallucinated citations or communications intended for the user. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Pbritti maybe nom for deletion? evidence of notability on that page is pretty weak. Also loathe to reward the bad behavior that went into this page going up grapesurgeon (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

ShekoNajib

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

In the course of monitoring the edit request queues, I came across the above editor who had added unsourced information to an infobox. Looking at their talk page, I see a long string of escalating warnings from Waxworker and others for much of the same, but with no responses from ShekoNajib. A glance at their contributions shows an exceedingly high number of reverted edits – they're mostly small additions to infoboxes and categories, but they show a misunderstanding of WP:CATVER and just WP:V in general (their talk page also shows a recent copyright infringement, which is somewhat more serious).

Alas, each of their edits has the "mobile edit" tag, which leads me to believe we're dealing with a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU situation. I'm not yet seeking sanctions other than a (hopefully short-lived) mainspace block in order to point them towards their talk page. I think that if they actually read the P&G links folks have been providing they can be a beneficial editor, but at the moment they're a drain on editor resources. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

This is ongoing. They've now made a few Talk page posts, like this and this, but it's just stuff they've made up. I spent way too much time researching a possible Brad Bird Snow Crash animated film.... I suggest a block from main space to get their attention. Woodroar (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Support some sort of block for disruption- came here after reverting/warning what I suspect was an AI-generated comment of an imagined menu on Talk:Food in Antarctica + seeing the numerous warnings and thread notice. Regardless of how the comment was made, it was definitely NOTFORUM territory. I think it's possible we could be dealing with a language barrier. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace as communication is not optional. I have no idea what they've been doing on talk pages but none of it resembles communicating. Any admin should feel free to unblock if they begin engaging here or on their talk. Rusalkii (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis on requested redirects

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

---

Deacon Vorbis keeps on declining to create redirects on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects that the other redirect creators would likely create saying their "unlikely search terms" which is against WP:CHEAP. For example they declined AJ Bell Great North Run which would be a redirect to the Great North Run. I have tried to make sense of these decisions and have just accepted them but I have had enough and can't take it anymore. I have decided to permanently quit Wikipedia due to it simply being unenjoyable for me but I have decided to write this to tell others about it. And for anyone wondering why I haven't talked to them on their talk page about their decisions it is because I'm scared of even challenging established users usually. ~2026-49171-81 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Haven't looked into the issue, just letting others know I've notified Deacon. @~2026-49171-81 it is not optional, regardless of whether you're "scared". Star Mississippi 20:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Mississippi. Also, please warn the editor that you started an ANI discussion about them when you start one. Jako96 (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Scared of challenging established users but not apparently of initiating ANI threads about them :eyeroll emoji:. This thread should be closed with a trout to the opener for drama-mongering. --JBL (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Jako96 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

No comment on the underlying issue, but AJ Bell Great North Run is a perfectly plausible search term as the current sponsored name, and I have created it accordingly. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:22, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree it's a completely valid redirect. GiantSnowman 20:26, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I saw this linked from the current RfD for AJ Bell Great North Run, where I have just !voted keep. I don't know if this should have been raised to ANI as the first resort, but I've had a look through Deacon's most recent declines starting from the last most recent Austerity (economics) to the most recent decline Outline of 9/11 (as of revision 1374793939 on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects).

I disagree with Deacon's declines for Austerity (economics), Burma at the 2026 Asian Games, Pop Gun Kelly and the ones from full names (use browser find function for Unless someone is widely known by their full name). The other three declines by Deacon I don't have an opinion on. Austerity has been objected to by another editor as well for being {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Myanmar is still sometimes referred to as Burma colloquially. "Pop Gun Kelly" is listed as an alternative name for Machine Gun Kelly (gangster) and is adequately sourced in the article, plus all of my Google results for this term are relevant. Unless the full names have some sort of unsourced or privacy BLP concern, these are all mentioned in the relevant article and could plausibly be copy pasted from elsewhere as a search term.

I don't buy the argument that redirects are unnecessary because search will direct readers to the article anyway, as a redirect saves the reader an extra click. Per Deacon's decline reason: someone is highly unlikely to search for it. In the unlikely event that they do, a search result will find it if it's mentioned in the article. Fork99 (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Anecdotally, at WP:RfD DV habitually nominates pretty inoffensive redirects for deletion - for instance, they have nominated Italy Republic → Italy, when the country's official name is the Italian Republic; Doing the moonwalk → Moonwalk (dance), despite it being an incredibly common term for the topic (that distinguishes it from the DAB Moonwalk); Origamiing → Origami, despite it being a cheap and plausible verb for the hobby, etc.

I don't think that regularly nominating inoffensive redirects at RFD that end up being kept is a particularly heinous crime, but it often wastes volunteer time, and it looks relevant to this pattern of declining reasonable new redirects. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is the cadre of RFD regulars who habitually show up and waste time voting keep on all of these. The ones you singled out were pretty terrible redirects and should have been deleted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

That is one opinion. It's apparently not one shared by many others. Maybe the problem isn't the "cadre"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

That's an interesting way of looking at it. In the three nominations I linked above, there were 11 unique participants, with only 2 people who voted in more than one of them (and no user voting in all three) - all participants (apart from yourself) voted to keep these. Wikipedia works via a consensus model where what is correct is ascertained via a series of community discussions, so if you are repeatedly finding yourself up against "regulars" who "show up" to overwhelmingly disagree with you, it may be that your view on what makes a good redirect just isn't aligned with community consensus. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I am far from an RfD regular, but I disagree that these were "terrible" redirects. I have now created the Pop Gun Kelly redirect, as perhaps the most egregious example listed above. Toadspike [Talk] 09:59, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you, Fork. It's not that deep in my opinion, but it's good to just make the redirect page like that. I see no reason to agree with Deacon at all. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 07:20, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

"DV is broadly on the deletionist side of things, at least with regards to redirects" is a true statement. It does not, however, require any administrative attention. This thread should never have been opened, appears to have been abandoned by its creator, and lacks any evidence that DV's behavior is disruptive in any way. (NB: "having a reasonable viewpoint that happens to be in the minority" is not disruptive; anyone who enjoys drama-mongering on that point should do it above.) --JBL (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the issues appear to run deeper than them just being a deletionist or exclusionist. For the three linked RfD discussions above, out of the eleven unique contributors, only DV voted to delete. In addition, this thread isn't primarily about their behavior at RfD, but rather about their behavior at WP:AFC/R, where they frequently decline requested redirects unilaterally for reasons that, as shown in this thread, many other editors think are frivolous. The lack of a response from the requester, who is a temporary account, may just be inexperienced with Wikipedia and may not understand that they are expected to consistently engage with the thread. I'd assume good faith.

Although I know that some people will definitely disagree, in my eyes, WP:ANI is absolutely the right place to take this issue, as this a persistent issue, and it isn't drama-mongering. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes obviously it's ok to have a particular opinion, including one that goes against the majority - I said earlier their RFD noms are not exactly a crime - I merely pointled them out to show that DV's opinions on redirects typically don't align with consensus, and they are aware of it. What is not ok is to repeatedly apply that non-consensus viewpoint at WP:AFC/R, which is not a discussion area - it is a place where trusted users are expected to apply a consistent set of criteria - it's somewhere users need to abide by consensus. The criteria DV is using to decline redirects is not covered by the redirect reviewing instructions, which explicitly says "If unsure whether the redirect is plausible enough, it is best to err on the side of accepting". DV is at the point where they are actually declining redirects when the redirect text is literally the name of the subject and the first words in the article. They can vote however they want at RFD but the more I look the more I think they should be blocked from reviewing redirects at AFC. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Many of their WP:AFC/R declines seem to rest on the idea that "a search result could find this page". In addition, I don't remember them ever accepting a redirect request. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Re "I don't remember them ever accepting", of DV's 401 edits at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, 37 have included at least one accept. I don't know if this suggests a high rate of unduly harsh rejections, that would need more detailed assessment (an extreme counter-hypothesis might be that every other reviewer is a pusillinamous sweetheart who too often leaves bad requests open rather than rejecting them, so it falls to DV to do a disproportionate number). NebY (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Re BugGhost's example above: The only reason I can think to decline Drake Lee Maye is suspicion that 'Lee' isn't actually his middle name, or is otherwise hyper-obscure. But a brief check of https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MayeDr00.htm indicates it is indeed used. I've created that redirect. SnowFire (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that DV has nominated Austerity (economics) for deletion and accused its creation of being WP:POINTY: . IMHO any potential pointiness here is going the other way than they think it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

As a member of the "cadre of RfD regulars" I would argue that (1) DV's nominations obviously do not deserve sanctions, though they should perhaps take a lesson from them being repeatedly kept, and (2) anyone reviewing redirects at AfC should apply the same standards as someone reviewing articles: is this redirect likely to survive a deletion discussion? I agree with the other editors here that the redirects being declined here clearly meet that bar and should not have been declined. Rusalkii (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Having looked into this some more, my eyebrow raised at this AFC/R decline. I would have declined it as well ("the IP address of somebody who created a hoax" is...of rather dubious plausibility as a redirect), but declining it per R3 is a take. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

DV has seemed to have stopped responding to redirect requests for a few days now. It might be best for them to take a break from WP:AFC/R for a bit. Not sure if there's much left to add, or if formal sanctions on them relating to WP:AFC/R are warranted. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis would you like to comment on this proposal? I see you've declined a few more redirects since this thread was opened. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:52, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The community has serious concerns about your conduct at AFC/R. If you do not address those concerns, it is entirely possible the community may decide to address them for you with a topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

No concrete proposal was suggested, so there's nothing to respond to. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The "concrete proposal" ought to be your topic ban from XfD. We're concerned about your behavior there. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 04:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC) My mistake, it's actually AfC. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 04:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I would oppose such a topic ban. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Why so? There are like 15 of us opposing your stay there. Think of the relatively many people who search up for those terms. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 05:27, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

"There are like 15 of us opposing your stay there." No there aren't. "Why so?" Besides the pretty obvious reason that it would impact me, no real disruption has been pointed out, just a few people pointing to a handful of declines they didn't like. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

We're not saying that we necessarily hate the declines, and the real disruption is being repeatedly pointed out - which is your repeated insistence that no one searches the term up whatsoever. You're the main subject of this entire thread, and you have to make some meaningful words. Be responsible. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 06:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Take some sort of action. Quick statement of principles: Of all AFC/R "regulars", one of them will have the highest rate of rejects, and that's fine, it's not evidence of anything (just as the lowest rate of rejects isn't a problem either). And the editor doing the work has wide discretion. However, JBL's portrayal of this as "drama-mongering" and complaining the filer hasn't posted since is dangerous. Venues frequented by non-logged-in users like AFC need special attention paid to them because if a "regular" editor goes way off script, the people affected aren't "regulars" who will necessarily know how or where to complain. Okay, that said... I looked at this diff from the Toolforge link above of 6 denials. All were names. So let's go through them:
  • Christine Marie Niedermeier: Uses this form of introduction in the very first reference... but it's a wedding announcement. But if we set that aside, the Hartford Courant and NY Times articles both introduce her as "Christine M. Niedermeier". This means that if we were being harsh maybe we only make the middle initial form, but... come on. Bad reject. I'm creating this.
  • Nicole Katharina Ehlers: Well, her FB account apparently uses / used the middle name, but the news sources don't. It'd still probably be harmless but fair reject.
  • Ernest Augustus Runtz Well one source only uses his middle name at , but two are offline. Another source cites 1913 obituaries it confusingly says called him "Ernest J. Runtz", but a Google on "Ernest Runtz" indicates other sources using "Ernest Augustus Runtz" e.g. , i.e. the common name of address is actually including his middle name. Just to make sure I checked "Directory of British architects, 1834-1900" on archive.org, and yeah, the "J." was just confused, and that source too uses "Ernest Augustus Runtz" everywhere. It seems more common than the form without the middle name, perhaps an argument for a requested move! So... bad reject, but I will admit this is one that took a little research. I've created it.
  • Martín Alejandro Gómez: The one and only external link is to https://www.bdfa.com.ar/jugadores-MARTIN-ALEJANDRO-GOMEZ-150773.html , with Alejandro right in the URL, and "MARTIN ALEJANDRO GOMEZ" on top. Come on. This is literally just click one link to check territory. I've created it.
  • Ronald Wayne Lou: Well, his common name is clearly Ron Lou, but and both put the full name right beneath it. Meaning it's a known alternate. Which is kinda the whole point of redirects. I'll call this one a defensible reject since we don't have a secondary news source on this obscure player directly mentioning the full name, but I'd disagree with it. I've created it.
  • Lou Roy Beatty Jr.: Newspapers.com doesn't like my account and won't let me see any of the sources on this one, so null tell, I can't check this one out.
• So of the 5 of the 6 I could check, I see 1 good reject, 1 defensible reject but where the redirect would survive a RFD discussion with 99% certainty, 1 bad reject but that required a bit of research to verify, and 2 clearly bad rejects that either didn't bother to investigate, or incorrectly applied an overly-strict criteria that isn't close to the actual criteria. 1.5/5 is not a good rate. A hypothetical reviewer on the pro-creation side who created 5 requested redirects and 3.5 of them were clearly "bad" creations would also be causing issues. I would hope that there is a solution short of page ban, but this is too wide of the mark to continue without something changing. SnowFire (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is not a particularly representative sample. On top of that, you say we have wide discretion, but then you turn right around and say I don't. So which is it? You found some you disagree with. Anyone will be able to comb through and find some. But what's the actual problem here? What disruption has been caused? And need I remind everyone, that no one has come to me first about this. Welllll, that's not quite true...a few people have posted questions about specific declines on my talk page, which I answer as they come up. Like User talk:Deacon Vorbis#I have many things to say, someone who didn't like my declines. And in case you missed it, this is the same guy who was on the verge of a TBAN from redirect creation as other editors independently sounded the alarm. See his talk page for the ANI discussion, I've spent too much time on this bullshit already. You're at the point where you're arguing content. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  What? I went through these 6 at random, precisely because people were calling out specific bad rejects above, but they could hypothetically have been a worst-of-the-worst collection of someone who processes a lot of requests. Where are you getting "not a particularly representative sample" from? Picking a diff at random with a large number of AFC/R responses was precisely to avoid complaints of cherry-picking.

  By wide discretion, I mean that if all of the cases were that of Ron Lou / Ronald Wayne Lou, I would have said to move on with no action. That's the case of "I personally would not have rejected, but a rejection is within the bounds of policy and at least somewhat debatable / borderline." And if just 1 of the rejects had been way off, then whatever, everyone has this kind of case. The fact that 3/5 of the rejects were way, way, off is bad. These are cases that are not within "discretion", they are within "did you bother to look into this request all or just subst a template on sight." And if you can't be bothered to do any research (in some of these cases, just clicking one link in the article), you could theoretically post a comment saying "can someone please investigate and provide affirmative evidence that this is a used alternative name." I don't think that would be super-helpful, but that would be better than doing a decline with no research.

  You ask "what is the actual problem here". The actual problem is that AFC/R is a place where people can request redirects. If we wanted a honeypot to waste people's time, we could just create a bot that auto-declines every request, no research required. But we don't. We don't need a human doing the same, either.

  I'm closer to nominating the Runtz article to move to "Ernest Augustus Runtz" outright from looking into it than declining that redirect; the form with the middle name seems like the common form of address. Do you still defend these declines? And did you decline them because you didn't do any research, or because you did the research and still thought the standard wasn't met? And do you plan on using a different approach if you were to see a similar batch of 6 such requests? SnowFire (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've done hundreds of these things, and you pick 6 from the past few days, all names. That's not a representative sample. You're also looking at these in a vacuum and ignoring the broader context. The requester had just been making request after request of random articles that didn't have their full name as a redirect.

  You've spent who knows how much time chasing down these few, but the requester presented no actual evidence that these were commonly used names. It's not the reviewer's job to do the research; it's the requester's. And frankly, if they don't like it, they can make an account and do it themselves. And I say this as someone who has spent a significant amount of time editing anonymously. I have the utmost empathy for the limitations that imposes. AFCRD also has a very high level of LTA presence, and I do what I can to weed out the crap.

  I will answer no further comments here. This has gotten beyond ridiculous and is feeling like an inquisition where anyone and everyone who has a bone to pick with me has come out of the woodwork to cherry pick a bunch of "oh this decline wasn't correct"s. Enough is enough, I'm tired of this shit. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  It was a sincere check and not cherry-picking. I picked one diff at random. If it had been strict-but-within-reason, I would have posted in your support even if I disagreed on all of them.

  If you think that it's on the filer to make an affirmative case, then you should have done what I suggested above - post "please provide evidence" rather than outright reject. When you pasted that reply, you said that the person was not "widely known by their full name", which implies you checked whether that's true. But as I showed above, some of these rejects were for people who were in fact known by their full name. SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  JBL's portrayal of this as "drama-mongering" and complaining the filer hasn't posted since is dangerous Dangerous! No drama-mongering here, to be sure. Y'all have fun, I guess. --JBL (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  It is a sincere comment. The biggest danger to Wikipedia is we drive away newbies and prospective editors. We should take any such reports seriously as a threat to the long-term health of Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  If you think this person was so egregiously wounded to quit editing because they disagreed with my rejects, then I have a bridge for sale in New York that you might be interested in. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Oooo, where? I'd want to buy it. How much is it? SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 06:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• I think some action taken here is necessary. The editor in question refuses to engage with these concerns and seems to have no intention of changing their actions at AfC/R. This is a problem because they are imposing their personal opinion as to whether the redirects should exist, rather than reflecting the community's consensus on the matter.Katzrockso (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've engaged about as much as is reasonable, especially considering that when it's mostly just been general bitching that some people don't agree with some of my declines, there's not a whole lot one can say. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  When the declines are neither backed by policy or consensus, there is a problem there. To minimize that as "general bitching" is concerning Katzrockso (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  True. Might as well tBan Deacon until they know how to do better at AfC/R. I don't think they know how to be generous enough to think of the relatively many people who refer to them as those names. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 00:45, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Given the replies here, I think a topic ban might be necessary Katzrockso (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Deacon's replies here seem to be WP:UNCIVIL to me. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 01:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Due to the total dismissal by DV of the legitimate concerns raised here by multiple editors, I support a topic ban from redirects and a formal civility warning. Fences&Windows 17:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions Is having heterodox views on what redirects should exist now sufficient for a topic ban? I'm not really seeing any misconduct beyond that here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  The issue is enforcing those heterodox (i.e. against community consensus) views at AFC/R. If an editor consistently accepted articles at AFC that were swiftly deleted at AfD, I think they would be sanctioned. Katzrockso (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Not immediately, they wouldn't be. It's funny that you're using "consistent" here too. As only a very small number of my responses at AFCRD have been brought up here, so no such consistency has been demonstrated. Also, there only very rarely anything like consensus views at AFCRD, because requests aren't generally subject to a discussion, but rather a single reviewer. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, except for the fact that you continually decline redirects that are universally kept at RfD. That is editing against community consensus to impose your personal views instead of the community's. Katzrockso (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Erm ... so are you saying that you vote along with the "community" for no reason beyond "everyone else is doing it?" I would like to think not; that you and every other editor chimes in on an issue based on your best understanding of policy and guideline. For my part, I've voted on a few thousand AfDs (ugh, but really), and I don't give a rat's ass about "community consensus," except in so far as respecting the outcome when it differs from my POV. I will vote as I see fit. Deacon Vorbis being out of step with expected outcomes, that's a reason for his POV not to succeed in such cases. It is sure as hell not a legitimate reason to t-ban him. Ravenswing 05:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think only the revocation of their tools is A-OK. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 05:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think you may have misinterpretted Katzrockso's comment - the tban being proposed is for AFC/R (not any discussion venue) because DV was declining AFC/R requests incorrectly. AFC/R is not a discussion based process, and it frequently involves new editors, and so adherance to consensus is required. As far as I'm aware, Katzrockso did not give any opinions about how to vote at XFD discussions. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, @Bugghost is correct here @Ravenswing. My post was entirely about AFC/R and not about RfD. Cullen328's post below explains the issue better:

  Deacon Vorbis is entitled to hold idiosyncratic anti-redirect views when commenting as an individual editor, but at a venue like AFC/R, they are in effect representing the entire community of registered editors. If they are unwilling to implement commonplace outcomes widely accepted by the editing community in that venue, then they should volunteer elsewhere Katzrockso (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Support. Jako96 (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• I'm neutral on a topic ban as I'm involved.
  SnowFire's post "please provide evidence" rather than outright reject. When you pasted that reply, you said that the person was not "widely known by their full name", which implies you checked whether that's true, I think, highlights a root issue here. We would not be having this discussion on the full name redirects if DV had simply rejected them based on "please provide sources". As for the other redirects, I agree with the general sentiment that having an unpopular opinion is fine but consensus should be respected.
  Re: incivility. With "general bitching", I don't know if this is a clear personal attack, but I would suggest that this is reworded to "complaining" or something like that instead, or taken back entirely. In conjunction with cadre of RFD regulars who habitually show up and waste time voting keep on all of these and The Bushranger's Accusations of WP:POINTY are an WP:ASPERSION (diff at RfD), I suppose there might be an uncivil undertone from DV. This is a volunteer project and users can spend their free time however they like here, that goes for DV as well. Fork99 (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  My actual reject notice was "Unless someone is widely known by their full name, such a redirect is generally unndeeded [sic] -- it won't be used as a linking aid, and someone is highly unlikely to search for it. In the unlikely event that they do, a search result will find it if it's mentioned in the article." I think this is a valid decline, and it does leave the door open for someone to resubmit with such evidence -- another point that's been missed here. Frankly, I think the more detailed explanation I gave is better than the standard canned "unlikely" response from the helper script. Could I have been a it more explicit about it? Sure, I guess, but a TBAN over such a slight difference in potential wording would be asinine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, if it does leave the door open for someone to resubmit with such evidence was your original intention with these declines, then you should be clearer with your wording in future. Fork99 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Ya know, that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't warrant an ANI discussion, so much as someone leaving a note on my talk page with "hey, I think you could have been clearer", let alone a TBAN. And while you highlighted this, this sort of getting-at-the-heart-of-the-matter view has been largely obscured in the rest of the discussion. It's just mostly been "these are bad declines, tban DV, wah!" –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  To be solemn with you, I think you shouldn't be involved in AfC/R unless you know how to do the job properly and not be like a bull in a china shop. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 23:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  A lot of this could be avoided if you had originally just replied with "fair enough, I'll take this feedback on board, will rereview some of those declines and will try to be closer aligned to community standards". But instead you've called the people who are flagging these issues a "cadre" "showing up" "out of the woodwork" "wasting time" "bitching" about "bullshit" and going "wah" because they "have a bone to pick". You've implied that the OP was lying about about quitting wikipedia because of your actions, without evidence. The problems with the declines are obvious and a wide range of editors in this thread have pointed them out, but you aren't showing any sign you will engage with anyone trying to raise them here. When a group of people bring up an issue, if the response is like yours (refusing to admit fault, not pausing the actions being discussed, claiming other editors are lying or have ulterior motives, that their evidence is cherry picked and not detailed enough), what really is the alternative to a TBAN? BugGhost 🦗👻 14:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes that would have been reasonable if the person who opened this thread had approached DV on their talk-page like they should have, instead of opening this inane thread. --JBL (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Ok, but they didn't. DV has dismissed all criticism of their declines and has implied the TA is a liar, so I doubt a talk page message would have been well received either. I don't really see what your point is or how it relates to the content (not the location) of this thread. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  No redirect with anyone's middle name that appears in the article would ever be deleted at RFD. I'm not sure where you're getting these standards from. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  It doesn't even have to be mentioned in the article, WP:RPURPOSE says Alternative forms of a name as found in reliable sources and common databases and More specific forms of names. WP:RGUIDE says deletion nominations made in contravention of the WP:REDIRECT guideline should be speedy kept. When the declines are so egregious that they would warrant a speedy keep at RfD, an approach change becomes necessary. Katzrockso (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  For BLP articles, if it's not mentioned in the article, the redirect with it would be a BLP vio and should be deleted (and of course, the mention in the article must be sourced as well). Even if not a BLP, an unsourced middle name should either be sourced or removed, and if it can't be sourced, the redirect shouldn't exist either. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  I checked the BLP policy and found no indication that "if it's not mentioned in the article, the redirect with it would be a BLP vio". The only relevant content I found stated Redirects from former to current names are explicitly permitted. The last time you made this argument at WP:RFD, it was rejected

  Here are several discussions where redirects were kept despite being unmentioned at the target . The question is whether the redirect aids a reader in obtaining information about the subject - if they read the full name in a news article (even if this is unmentioned in the Wikiepdia article), they should be able to be directed to the correct Wikipedia article. Unverifiable alternative names are a different story, since that would evidence that there is no utility to the redirect. Even more, this RfD even kept a redirect for a name known to be wrong. We have Template:R from incorrect name for a reason. Katzrockso (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  You keep saying that no one searches with middle names. That is just not true. I find cause to search with middle names basically every time I write about or research a person. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Whe I first saw this thread, my thinking was "sorry, maybe not ideal behaviour but jumping straight to ANI is not actually okay even if you're nervous about contacting someone in a different forum". I still think this, and oppose any sanctions as DV (as far as I can tell) has never been told before that anyone had a problem with their redirect reviewing. That being said, uh, they have now been told, and if they continue with the attitude of "I'm right and changing nothing" they will be editing against a clear consensus. A nonstandard opinion on what redirects should exist is fine when creating redirects, voting in discussions, etc, but should not be imposed when acting on behalf of the community as a reviewer. ....on the third, mutant hand, if the accepted standard for redirects at AfC is that all evidence must be presented in the submitted content, in the same way that articles must demonstrate notability with the sources in the text, then these redirects are fine. DV has not really offered this as an explanation, though. Rusalkii (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Rusalkii does have a point above...but when DV was told here there was indeed a problem with their redirect reviewing, their reaction has been to blame everyone other than themselves for the issue, and to steadily keep digging the more they're told the problem is in fact them, they're accusing people who disagree with them and create cromulent redirects they declined as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and as we can see above they're twisting some of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies to support their idiosyncratic views. If they refuse to drop the stick the community has no recourse but to take it away from them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify - would this be a topic ban from AfC/R or some other topic area? Katzrockso (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's a tBan from AfC/R only, as far as I know from this thread. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 01:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Correct; apologies, I assumed that was clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• I think this is a situation where a warning may be warranted; there are reasonable concerns raised here, and I'm not exactly thrilled by Deacon's responses, but this should've had some talk page discussion before coming here and I don't see any pressing concerns in their most recent AFC/R declines that go against the advice of this thread. Blocks/bans, even topic ones, should be an absolute last resort, and we are not there. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Something that I've just come across after making this comment is that our reviewing instructions for AFC/R are not very specific on what is and is not allowed. That page should definitely be improved; if anyone wants to help, I would like to improve those reviewing instructions. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• The responses to this thread are concerning. Above, SnowFire picked a random diff, presumably one which had a highish number of actions in a single diff, and the response to this was to call it an "inquisition" and accuse SnowFire of "spen[ding] who knows how much time chasing down these few". I assume "I've spent too much time on this bullshit already" is referring to some background beyond this AN/I, but such background is not a reason to be incivil here. A topic ban from AfC/R seems the only preventative measure so far proposed. CMD (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  I just suggested a warning; is that considered a preventative measure? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  If it is thought it would be more effective than this AN/I discussion was. CMD (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Warn DV, as their opinion in this thread seems highly WP:UNCIVIL and smug. No opinion on sanctions, as I feel like I'm not really in a place to give an opinion on that. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. I find it inappropriate to keep defending oneself like this when a significant portion of discussion is highlighting the problematic aspect of D's treatment of people they don't agree with. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 05:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Restored from archive so this can have a resolution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Noting for the record how absolutely fucked up this is that he didn't get the outcome he wanted, so it was brought back to loom over me...this has been going on for two fucking weeks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  For the same record, there was no outcome or resolution at all. This thread was auto-archived and then later restored due to a lack of resolution despite comments indicating that a remedy to the situation was needed. (Technically, this was restored twice since you tried to re-archive it, which isn't a good look.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Looking through this entire thread, I firmly support the revocation of the accepting and declining tools from AfC/R for violating WP:CHEAP and should sanction them for acting uncivil throughout this entire discussion. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 03:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

CHEAP is an essay; you can't violate an essay. And even then, my declines were never even in contradiction with CHEAP. CHEAP is a counter to complaints about (nonexistent) server resource limits; I never made any such complaints in my declines. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from AFC/R. Deacon Vorbis is entitled to hold idiosyncratic anti-redirect views when commenting as an individual editor, but at a venue like AFC/R, they are in effect representing the entire community of registered editors. If they are unwilling to implement commonplace outcomes widely accepted by the editing community in that venue, then they should volunteer elsewhere. Most concerning is Deacon Vorbis's refusal to acknowledge and take on board legitimate criticism. Their dismissive, flippant and borderline uncivil comments here are a major factor in my decision to support this sanction. Cullen328 (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  You missed the part where I did take on board valid criticism, AND the part where I incorporated it into my actual behavior there. You also missed the part where this was only about a VERY small handful of cases, and the vast majority of which were unproblematic, and no one talked to me ahead of time. This is an absolutely ludicrous reaction. So yes, I'm flippant, as I damned well should be. And if this lost steam due to a lack of consensus, let it fucking die. How long do I have to sit here with this looming over me? Jesus fucking christ, enough already. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  The more you bludgeon and assume bad faith while flinging invective left and right, especially when one of the reasons this was brought back was so that it wouldn't loom over you as unresolved, is not a good look. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Deacon Vorbis: You have the right to be frustrated, but you should keep it civil as per Wikipedia rules.

  @The Bushranger: Could you do something about it? I'm reminded to reduce my usage of ANI, and I don't want to be involved in it as long as this drama drops down. It's getting a bit out of hand with Deacon's assertion that we're going nuts. Wah! SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 07:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions: per my rant above. Ravenswing 05:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions I'm as unimpressed by the "restoring from archive so this can have a resolution" as I am by "indefinite DNAUs so this can have a resolution". Archiving without a closing statement or action is a resolution, deal with it. It must be tough having to be accused of "dismissive, flippant, and borderline uncivil comments" while SlapstickHumor360 is allowed to go around making obviously troll-adjacent comments all over the shop, without a hint of an admin response. If two involved editors can decide to un-archive a discussion, one wonders why another involved editor un-un-archiving it is "not a good look"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Are you involved in this? If not, then we can both freely get off. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 09:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Editors regularly unarchive or bump threads to prevent archiving. What's the issue? Katzrockso (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Katzrockso, see . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as Deacon Vorbis said he would "take on board valid criticism". Since this was, to my knowledge, the first time he was criticized for this, a non-punitive approach should be preferred. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  But are they really changing their behavior? I'll add a ratio at the end of every message that I place here, support to oppose. 1:1. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 09:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions for Deacon Vorbis - there was no need to unarchive this so that we could reach this outcome, archiving had accomplished that already. However, Support pblock for SlapstickHumor360! (signing as SH360!) from AN/ANI; they have repeatedly given assurances they'll stay away but now say "I can't resist it." NebY (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'll acknowledge that I'm not supposed to reply here because I'm not involved at all. If you're fine with it, rest assured that I'll step back from this. I'm still a new user, and I must know how to use ANI properly. I now know that everyone needs to stay on their own lane, including me. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 10:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Without commenting on the actual issue, I have to say I'm pretty unimpressed that DV unilaterally removed and archived this entire section earlier today. It was quite right to restore it so that it could have a resolution. I'm equally unimpressed at DV's comments today, as well; I understand that this must be frustrating but ranting and swearing at people isn't going to achieve anything. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Since I haven’t explicitly said it before: oppose all sanctions. This thread never should have been opened, when DV is approached through appropriate channels (and even in this absurd discussion) he is receptive and responsive to criticism, and then this thread never should have been restored (having been archived in a state where no action was needed). The re-opener should receive a warning (their contributions on ANI are almost entirely unconstructive and they have been asked by numerous editors to knock it off) and the tone-policers should try to think about what they’re actually trying to accomplish in aggravating situations for no benefit. --JBL (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  @JayBeeEll I believe it's Bushranger who unarchived the section; SH360! was just the first to comment.

  That said, I also Weak oppose sanctions on DV. Their conduct here hasn't been stellar, but within the "dragged to ANI without prior discussion" range. I think this ANI can serve as the warning about redirects. If they keep declining valid redirects, then this can be brought up again. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC) Struck 'correction' that was incorrect. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  SH360! prompted Bushranger to unarchive with a post titled "Random question" on Bushranger's talk page. NebY (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Thanks for the correction! EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Back some sort of sanction or warning, even if that was ‘this thread is a warning overall’ - DV has overreacted to a thread, and evidence has been found of him either not understanding how redirect guidelines work or simply ignoring them in favour of his own interpretation. Some oppose votes above seem like just responses to the unarchiving and not to any DV conduct… — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-52424-45 (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support whatever action will induce DV to improve their attitude and behaviour. I have strong opinions on the value of redirects, but this is not the place to discuss them. I have no objection to industrial language (you don't want to hear what I call my ISP). but this is unacceptable in a civilised discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Re-close with no sanctions. This thread had already run its course. Declining redirects is entirely within the decliner's purview and DV does not deserve to be dragged through weeks more of the same drama-mongering. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Wandering admin comment, I have p-blocked SlapstickHumor360! from Wikipedia space for the disruption here and elsewhere. No comment on merits of the rest of the discussion. Star Mississippi 01:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Kick the can down the road I feel like the lesson has been learned. If not, then it can be brought back up again later. Consensus is firmly against sanctions, and, while I would beg to differ on DV having improved, I don't think anything can be gained on forcing sanctions. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

With that said, I feel like this thread is filled with WP:BLUDGEONING, assumptions of bad faith, WP:BITE-y behavior, and general WP:INCIVILITY. If this gets brought up again, hopefully it can be done without unnecessary smug comments and semi-relentless casting of WP:ASPERSIONS. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Temporary account(s) WP:BLUDGEONING and personal attacks on talk page

Temporary account user ~2026-49665-19 (talk · contribs) has been bludgeoning on Talk:Human wave attack for some time and is now resorting to personal attacks. TylerBurden (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Block user ridiculous behavior. Unproductive and spamming grapesurgeon (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Support a block. Not only have they wasted so much time with their inability to understand RS, DUE, POV, and OR, but the personal attack sealed the deal. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

User:BasNamRahegaAllaKa Persistent Disruptive edits to multiple pages

User:BasNamRahegaAllaKa has made consistent disruptive edits, bordering on vandalism, on several pages in recent days. These edits feature the deletion of much text, including at Hindu American Foundation, Vikram Sampath, and 2025 Indian electoral controversy. One page has already seen increased protection due to this. I have warned user and user's response was not promising. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not have a developed opinion on the reported editor; I will note that some (not all) of these edits touch on contentious topics/SA, but that I don't see a CTOP notice. I _do_ have concerns about the OP here. Indeed the OP's revert looks like unexplained removal of sourced information. They were recently blocked for edit-warring (reported by Nat Gertler, blocked by ToBeFree) at Jeffery D. Long. At that pages, they had a particular habit of introducing contentious edits, and then when they were reverted placing an edit summary similar to "do not revert without discussing on talk page" in some kind of upside down version of WP:ONUS. (On the talk page, they urge others to gain consensus before editing, but do not seem to follow that themselves; see also BLPN complaint of Long.) OP previously left vandalism notice for good faith edits at Ftrhi. To summarize, user seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, not to build an encyclopedia. and has been editing tendentiously over time in service of this goal. I suggest that WP:BOOMERANG may be relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This is only partly accurate. I engaged with users about the recent block and now have a better understanding of the definition of edit warring. We also reached consensus on additions to the Long's page. User:Russ Woodroofe and I are on different sides of an ongoing RFC.

This issue is separate. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I want admins to review Shahinshah121 (talk · contribs)'s conduct regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Savarkar_(book) and the unauthorized merge into Vikram Sampath after fracturing the article despite being reverted.

When their deletion nomination reached the consensus keep, they unilaterally merged the page into the author's article. There was no consensus for a merge. In fact, comments suggested moving content from the author's page to the book's page, not the reverse.

If you look at their contribution history closely, you will see a clear pattern of advocacy. They have repeatedly tried and failed to launch a page for Draft:South_Asia_Scholar_Activist_Collective. This group is currently in a public clash with the Hindu American Foundation, a page Shahinshah121 has edited with a heavy bias. They are here for advocacy, and don't think they are trying to build an encyclopedia.

All of these edits I have highlighted come under the purview of WP:CTOP/SA by the way. — Longewal (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

user:Longewal should take issues with the Hindu American Foundation to that talk page and ongoing RFC. Many editors are involved.

WP:MERGE says "Any editor can perform a merge. If merging is obviously needed and is not controversial, editors are encouraged to be bold and simply do it themselves." Merge was suggested during the AFD because the content was repetitive. Nobody objected during that discussion. If user objects now, they can take this up at the merged talk page and seek revert. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Let's examine an essential piece of policy you quoted: "If merging is obviously needed and is not controversial"

You started a AfD stating the book is not notable and can simply be merged into Vikram Sampath, and then when the consensus was Keep meaning the book was notable in its own right, you went ahead and merged it into Vikram Sampath anyway.

You think your merge was not controversial? — Longewal (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I left basic instructions on User:Longewal's page if he wanted to pursue this. This is not the right place. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

No, ANI is the correct place to discuss conduct issues. And "merged an article that was Kept at AfD" is absolutely a conduct issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

And accordingly, I have reverted your merge. Your edit comment here being straight-up untrue. Given this and your statements at the AfD unilaterally declaring you were going to merge it, I have partially blocked you from Savarkar (book) until this has been resolved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm struggling to see how this editor could be here in good faith, given their userpage and name compared to the content of their edits. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Uh, wow. Didn't take me long to find an insta-indef-worthy edit. So, that's handled. No opinion on any boomerang stuff. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Shahinshah121's conduct notwithstanding, the original report has merit. Looking through their edits to Hindu American Foundation, I am seeing a considerable overreliance on the HAF's own website, and also original research of a a POV nature: compare the added text to the cited source here, for instance. The nature of the OR also heavily implies LLM usage to me. This is not a user who should be editing contentious material. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: the POV they argue to advance (which, to be clear, it is permitted to hold) is heavily at odds with their username and userpage, which suggests to me too that they are not here in good faith. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Coming here from Shahinshah121's user talk page, the username (of BasNaamRahegaXXX) alone gives me pause, and the edits suggest to me that if a CU is run it will reveal they're a sock of one of our long-time blocked sock-farms. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

OK I see that a CU already determined they were a sock, though not one blocked a long time ago. Well, they do all behave in the same manner anyway. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

That said, Russ Woodroofe's comment above combined with the unilateral merge against consensus for which they earned a partial block does show seemingly WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on Shahinshah121's part. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I misunderstood Wikipedia policy on merges. I understand my error now and will not repeat it. It was my first attempted merge and, while I now understand and agree about the error, it was a good faith mistake. I do not see how merging without deleting anything is WP:BATTLEGROUND, but the mistake is still there on Wikipedia policy. I am sorry. I would have reversed the merge but another editor did it before I could.

The point of this report was something else. I am glad it was resolved. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Devrath Magahiya

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

---

I'm not usually overly-bothered by personal attacks, but this is beyond the pale. Translate at your own risk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Ooof! That is so bad I suggest revdel. Narky Blert (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Clear violation of Wikipedia:CONDUCT (Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Harassment) policies, strict actions must be taken against the user User:Devrath Magahiya. I request an administrator block against the mentioned user in the earliest. I am saddened that user @AndyTheGrump had to encounter such an editor on Wikipedia. Such personal abuse and slurs have no place in Wikipedia discussions. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I can see that a week long ban has been placed on the user in discussion, thanks to the administrator for speedy action. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree this violates WP:CONDUCT. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd argue that this should be an indef, a user throwing that around should need to reassure the community to their co-operative and AGF approach before regaining editing rights. Canterbury Tail talk 17:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I blocked for a week when I first saw the attack to stop the disruption while I investigated the rest of their editing. I've indeffed them for personal attacks, insufficient proficiency with English to communicate, and LLM abuse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Lmojaha1010 uncivil comments and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Lmojaha1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor seems to be an SPA and their edits have all been disruptive so far. This first edit sets the tone for the rest, which includes edit-warring at Almohad Caliphate (, , , ) and Almoravid dynasty (, , ). Their mainspace edits have slowed down, but I'm reporting them now because they've also openly insulted one editor and their other talk page comments since then have been borderline at best, with no indication that they're willing to change behaviour. Evidence:

• This comment on Slimanian's user talk page is clearly unacceptable. I posted a warning about it on their user talk page right after (), to which they have not responded.
• This comment at Talk:Almohad Caliphate is non-constructive at best, and my policy-based response to it () was met with this response which is needlessly hostile and frivolously speculates on my nationality/origin ("even if u was some portuguess or spanich or whatever").
• They are refusing to drop the stick at Talk:Almoravid dynasty, where their comments have also been consistently hostile to every editor. Their latest reply () once again frivolously speculates about another editor's nationality ("and from i see here u are algerien that speaking out of rage without any context ,well, im gona hold ur hand when i say this , it dosent matter how made u are ,").
• (The alternation between competent English writing and almost unfeasibly bad writing in comments like this and this is also rather odd; inconsistent use of LLMs?).

I might be more understanding if this editor was merely reacting to being ganged up on at Talk:Almoravid dynasty, but their insult on Slimanian's talk page was before all that and they've maintained a rude and non-constructive tone towards all editors since then. It's hard to imagine a scenario where they are here to build an encyclopedia. R Prazeres (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeffed, NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Clear indications of violation of Wikipedia:Conduct, the discussion before this has a similar instance of rude and unfriendly behaviour and I'd request a ban on the editor for their continued disruption and violation of Conduct policies. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Speedy Question Mark disruptive editing on McLaren

User:Speedy Question Mark recently attempted to change the logo on the McLaren page to one that is not as well-sourced as the logo that had previously been place for months. I reverted this change and explained on the talk page why I disagreed, as did another editor, but Speedy ignored our points, refused to gain consensus, refused to discuss the change, and simply keeps reverting the page and repeating the same arguments. They have asked for a third opinion yet continue to revert the page instead of waiting for that opinion. They will not even attempt to gain consensus for their change, instead resorting entirely on personal attacks, even attacking me on my own talk page. I do not think this ever needed to get this far, I don't think any meaningful punishment is warranted, I would just like it to be explained to Speedy that they need to make an effort to discuss these things in good faith and gain consensus for their change, and they cannot just repeatedly revert the page in lieu of gaining that consensus. I am well aware that I have edit warred as part of this argument but there was clearly no way Speedy was ever going to participate in any discussion if we left their change in place. Thanks for any help you can provide. LightningBag (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I have provided multiple solid sources to my changes and you have ignored every single one of them, you never provided a sufficient argument against any of my sources in the first place, you have constantly gaslighted and lied about my behaviour to other users in an attempt to play the victim and it's rather disruptive to the editing process. You take everything as an attack and the only reason I commented on your talk page to begin with was because you was lying about me to another user. All the things you accuse me of you are guilty of doing yourself which is the ironic part of all this. You say the logo I provided isn't well sourced despite me providing multiple sources to you. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

You should read WP:BRD, WP:1AM, and WP:EW. Being right isn't enough. Everyone thinks they're right. Wikipeida is built on consensus. If you don't have consensus for your change, then it doesn't happen. -- Mike 🗩 17:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

In the meantime, I requested full protection of McLaren at RfPP until this gets resolved. Jdcomix (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

ANI is not the place for continuing a content dispute. Jdcomix (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why has everyone got a habit of ignoring the sources I provided? To make the suitable changes you need sources, I provided the appropriate sources. The logo I uploaded is being used by the team I can provide visual evidence. Saying the team isn't using the logo at this point is pure delusion and denial. I've also explained why the current logo being used is wrong. Again I'm being ignored. It's enough to want to pull ones hair out. So he provides a source it's fine, I provide multiple valid and official sources it's a no. Make it make sense. I'm getting massive ownership vibes from all this. So we are going to keep THE WRONG logo just because one user is stubborn and ignores all points made. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Mike already explained this. It's not about being right or wrong. It's about gaining consensus for your changes. In many cases there is not one objectively right decision. That's entirely why Wikipedia is built on consensus. LightningBag (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I've provided more sources which back up my side of the discussion on the talk page. At this point the consensus doesn't make sense and is just ignoring reason. No valid reason against the change has been provided. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean that's just not true, we've explained numerous times why we think the sources for the current logo are stronger than yours, and another editor has just pointed out that the French Wikipedia uses the same logo and has cited McLaren's own brand assets. Consensus is about discussion, it's not about posting a bunch of links. LightningBag (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that the logo that McLaren themselves are using isn't the team logo because that's totally not gaslighting at all. Also You've not explained what is wrong with the multiple sources I've provided. If it wasn't the team logo then it wouldn't have been used at Grand Prix weekends. Of course that smaller logo is part of their brand assets but it's clearly not the main logo that they use. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I haven't commented one way or the other who I think is correct or not. I don't actually know or care. ANI is about conduct, not content. -- Mike 🗩 19:19, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

My name is Bryan a developer team member, I'm reaching out regarding an unsolicited article that is hurting our search engine rating

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

---

My attention was drawn to an AfDed article about our company which is unsolicited and is defaming our business trust, This page is a copyright violation of our trademarked mCoves brand and subsidiary, we didn't request at any point for an article to be created, and had no knowledge of the page untill it showed up on our search engine crawl, requesting speedy deletion of [articles of deletion] shouldn't be a big deal as it's hurt the trust on search engine, some group of individuals are out to defame our company, they just left bunch of reviews on our trust pilot which we was able to revert, now this one, it's called vandalism. Please help stop the vandalism by deleting. Thank you ~2026-52236-66 (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The article was deleted two days ago. You can see at MCoves that the article no longer exists. Please also see WP:NLT and WP:COI, though understand that I'm not accusing you of violating those, just bringing them to your attention. --Yamla (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It seems like they want the AfD page itself deleted, which is of course very unlikely to happen. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

AfDs are NOINDEXed by default. If it's showing up on Google, something is going wrong. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 20:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you please identify where, exactly, the copyright violation is on that page? Using a company name does not break any kind of copyright law or violate Wikipedia's policies, and that page is an internal record on our end. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

+1 It isn't a copyright violation to mention a company name and we don't generally delete deletion discussions as those are actually important should anybody ever re-create the article in the future. I'm also unclear how there being a deletion discussion is hurting someone's search engine rankings. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

There was an article about your company on Wikipedia. That article was deleted after a discussion by editors on the page you are linking to. That page will not be deleted. It says nothing defamatory about your company. All it says is that your company isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

OP blocked for NLT, sockpuppetry. I'd add personal attacks as well but NOTBURO. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Probably moot with the block, but the only remaining documentation related to the company on project pages are the deletion discussion and the logo on Commons. Neither are likely to be deleted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Looks likethe sockpuppet investigation will have more text about this than anything else, given the rate at which socks are appearing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. Relevant info is the SPI, the deleted article, the AfD debate, and the prior ANI. This is getting quite tiring. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, I think I see, so company creates WP page for their non-notable enterprise. This is deleted. They try to use sock puppets to affect the AfD and fail so now they want the AfD deleted because that might make it easier to recreate the article later? Is this the gist? Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  When searching for "MCoves", the AfD comes up on the first page of Google for me. I can see how that might be a bad look so they want it suppressed. The problem for them is that other companies don't have a say on whether they have an article here. I'm sure that there are many people and many companies that would prefer to have their articles altered or even removed to fit their commercial purposes but that's not our priority or concern. I have little sympathy for them anyway as they were pushing for their company to have an article via socks and so can't complain about the negative consequences that were caused by their actions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds like a them-vs-google problem, with a side order of Streisand effect. I thought AFDs and similar things weren't google-indexed? DMacks (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Correct, I don't think anything in 'Wikipedia' space is Google indexed. I'm not sure what's happened here. Not anything we need to lose sleep over, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia namespace is indexed by default. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Articles for Deletion subpages are specifically NOINDEXed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  AFD and a number of similar venues are in robots.txt (enwiki-specific section, full content). Google, in typically evil fashion, started some years ago to effectively ignore that - it shows listed pages in search results, just not a snippet. —Cryptic 20:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Any admin up for a quick title blacklist of "Maradex Cove", "Maradex Coves", "MCoves", "M Coves", "MCove" and "M Cove"? Extra internet points available for adding maradexcove.com to WP:BED — it doesn't appear to be a live site, but it is plastered through Google thanks to repeat mentions on LinkedIn and other user-generated sites. Might put a stop to this nonsense? • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 18:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Not sure if SALTing or the MW blacklist would be more effective here, but either would probably do the job. Jdcomix (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's only been in mainspace the one time plus a handful of drafts that were mostly G13'd years ago. No recreations in mainspace, and no mfd to disallow drafts. We normally don't salt, let alone blacklist, titles with this little abuse. Do please drop a note on Mediawiki talk:Titleblacklist if that changes. —Cryptic 20:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I have courtesy-blanked the AfD page as requested. I have no relationship to MCoves. This is a small thing we can easily do. Note that the OP requested "deleting" this page which is against policy, but courtesy blanking fulfills the need for all intents and purposes and is within policy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Clayoquot: It's not a courtesy we usually extend to editors that repeatedly violate our rules. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  ...with a history going back over a decade. Given that, I think it's important that we be able to find those older discussions in the future, as all evidence suggests they have no intent to stop trying to create articles. Therefore, I oppose courtesy blanking the AFD, but would consider NOINDEXing it (thanks for the tech detail, User:Helpful Raccoon). DMacks (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Why? They violated one of the most fundamental rules of WP with UPE. The burden of their business looking bad shouldn't fall on volunteer editors. I reverted the blanking. 19:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC) Jdcomix (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would've reverted if you hadn't. It's not sensitive material, and by bad-faith actions, don't merit a courtesy to my eyes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Entirely coincidentally, yesterday some rather unhappy TAs (~2026-52118-80 and ~2026-52162-62) from the same city and ISP as our friend "Bryan ... from dev team at mCoves group LLC" attempted some childish vandalism, perhaps in an effort to get their article restored. This may be helpful context for @Clayoquot and others wishing to extend courtesies. Toadspike [Talk] 19:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• I'll just point out that courtesy blanking is something we used to do routinely for people who've done much worse things than this company is being accused of doing. Courtesy blanking is not an endorsement of an editor's behaviour. It's a way to save future volunteer time by giving people a diginified way out of their conflict with Wikipedia. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  This doesn't seem to be an editing group that wants a dignified way out of their conflict of Wikipedia. This appears to be an editing group that is continuing to abuse Wikipedia, and all removing the history from those who don't specifically look for it does is make things harder for people who are watching for problems. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Looks like they failed. Streisand effect. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Well they succeeded in Streisanding, I guess? DMacks (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Hah, I was wondering what incident that was connected to but hadn't had time to poke into it yet. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Paid editor continuing to use AI after multiple warnings

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

(Note the AI-generated canned user page)

Draft:Kuo Zhang was declined for AI use by Helpful Raccoon. SB proceeded to supposedly rewrite the article in their own words, per their edit summary here, but a cursory glance at that edit reveals it's literally just a surface level thesaurus-like rewording of the previous version. I declined it again and specifically instructed them to rewrite it from scratch; which they now claim to have done but this edit is also obviously AI generated; it's full of WP:AIATTR and according to JohnLaurens333, GPTZero flags the current revision as entirely AI generated.

This editor has been told about WP:NOLLM in no uncertain terms multiple times and persists in using AI in the hopes we won't notice; this is obviously disruptive and this editor should be blocked. Athanelar (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

They also seem to have been "fixing" drafts created by other editors by running them through an LLM, with an edit summary of "Created neutral draft about [x]. Draft:InterServer, for example, was declined in June. SB completely rewrote it and it now shows signs of AI, and GPTZero flagged it as 100% AI. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 19:15, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely from article space to prevent further disruption, with no prejudice against further sanctions based on LLM use or other factors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I can see where i am doing mistake, as per policy, I do take from LLM for rephrasing, but for sure i am writing it by my self first. From now i will not give AI for rephrasing. Sophiabennett (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear, For once i have rephrased it in my words, still it shows LLM, on that behalf you have declined my draft as well. then i realize and wrote it from scratch third time, Now i understand where i am lacking. Kindly unblock my account, and you can check Kuo Zhang, only first paragraph is showing more than 50% AI detection rest draft isn't showing any AI traces. I have checked it on Zerogpt from my end as well.

I have rephrase first paragraph as well it is still showing 40% AI, i'll re-write it from different angle.

I hereby request you to unblock my account. and Sorry for the inconvenience. Sophiabennett (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Unblock requests should go on your own Talk page. There will be instructions in the block message.

In general, getting a better score with AI detectors is not sufficient. A major reason for banning LLM text on Wikipedia is that there are often claims made in the article not supported by the sources. AI detectors cannot find those. LLM text needs to be completely rewritten by a human who has read the sources. There are no shortcuts, and if you keep trying to find shortcuts you are likely to remain blocked. M kuhner (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advise and instructions to be followed, I'll keep it in my mind, will do close look on both points before submitting or re-submitting any article. Thanks Sophiabennett (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Continuous vandalism from a TA

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

---

I would have taken this to AIV but this user seems to be continually returning with new TAs to continue vandalism. Their current TA is ~2026-52426-37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). You can see they already have 3 other blocked TAs (~2026-21148-32, ~2026-21541-80, ~2026-38679-96), the most recent being blocked yesterday. Their vandalism always takes the form of introducing deliberate factual errors (changing match times on pro wrestling articles away from the sources). As this person is engaging in obvious block evasion only a single day after being blocked, I request this new TA be blocked. However, are there any longer term solutions to avoid this person coming back every day? — Czello ^(music) 07:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked both underlying IP ranges for 6 months. Black Kite (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you — Czello ^(music) 08:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

In future you should use WP:AIV for requests like this; you can include your other requests for more thorough solutions etc in the AIV comment grapesurgeon (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

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

ANI complaint ---- CoffeeCrumbs

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

---

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 am requesting administrator attention to repeated warnings from CoffeeCrumbs concerning my use of dispute-resolution processes.

On 30 September 2026, after reverting my edits, CoffeeCrumbs stated on my Talk page:

“However, I would not recommend filing, as it's likely to end up with you being blocked, but it is your right to do so.”

I understand that CoffeeCrumbs may disagree with my edits and may believe that a caste-related restriction applies to them. I am not asking administrators to resolve that underlying content dispute in this complaint.

My concern is the repeated escalation and discouragement surrounding my attempts to raise the dispute. I would like an uninvolved administrator to determine whether these warnings are an appropriate explanation of the applicable restriction or whether they amount to unnecessary discouragement of legitimate dispute resolution.

I also ask that the administrator distinguish between:

1. whether my edits actually fall within the stated restriction;
2. whether CoffeeCrumbs' characterization of my conduct is accurate; and
3. whether repeatedly warning me that I am likely to be blocked for seeking review is appropriate.

I am providing the exact Talk-page comment so that its context can be assessed rather than characterizing CoffeeCrumbs' statement myself.

Aaranyaka (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

1. CoffeeCrumbs is correct, and there was no "repeated escalation".

2. Stop using a large language model to communicate.

4. There is no "dispute": you are simply violating a number of Wikipedia's policies while CoffeeCrumbs is upholding them.

3. You cannot edit caste-related topics until you are extended confirmed – this is not a difficult rule. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Aaranyaka desired to make a complaint about me but was dropping their complaint on their talk page and on the article page, so I advised them on the proper procedure to do so, while recommending that it would not be a good idea. So, consider me notified about this ANI filing.

I have nothing else to add at this time. I notified Aaranyaka twice about the extended-confirmed restriction of WP:CT/SA, which apparently they do not understand, which is probably why they're communicating by LLM. I have already filed a quick request. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

But were you notified of the second ANI filing? 😆😆😆 aesurias (she/her) (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

They call that "an ANI filing and a chaser." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is the quite obvious WP:LOUTSOCKING that I was referring to. , . CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for review: Birbal sourcing dispute and CoffeeCrumbs' conduct

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 request administrator review of the recent editing dispute concerning the Early life section of [[Birbal]] and the conduct of [[User:CoffeeCrumbs]].

The issue concerns both the treatment of historical sources regarding Birbal's ancestry and the subsequent handling of discussion concerning those sources.

On 29 September 2026, material identifying Birbal's family as Brahm/Bhat (Brahmbhatt) was added, citing P. P. Sinha's 1980 monograph ''Raja Birbal: Life and Times''. On 30 September at 09:20 UTC, CoffeeCrumbs reverted the revision and removed the Sinha citation and associated material. At 10:06 UTC I restored the material, after which CoffeeCrumbs reverted it again at 10:20 UTC. The subsequent revision history shows further reversions and was followed by CoffeeCrumbs reporting me to Arbitration Enforcement.

I also attempted to raise the sourcing issue on the article's Talk page. Discussion concerning the historical sources was subsequently removed. I request that administrators examine the relevant Talk-page history and diffs as well as the article history, rather than relying on either editor's characterization of the dispute.

There is older documentary evidence relevant to the historical question. Edmund W. Smith's Archaeological Survey of India publication ''The Moghul Architecture of Fathpur-Sikri'' describes Birbal as a Brahman named Mahesh Das and as a Bhât/minstrel. The ''Ain-i-Akbari'' likewise identifies Raja Birbal as a Brahman and describes him as a Bhat.

I am not asking administrators to decide Birbal's ancestry in my favour. I am asking that the sourcing be evaluated consistently and at the level of the actual sources, including:

• whether P. P. Sinha's ''Raja Birbal: Life and Times'' supports the material for which it was cited;
• whether the replacement citations actually support the specific Kanyakubja assertion at the relevant pages;
• whether the historical sources identifying Birbal as a Brahman/Bhat have been accurately represented; and
• whether removing sourced discussion from the article's Talk page was appropriate.

I also request review of the subsequent allegations concerning logged-out editing and alleged restriction evasion. These are serious allegations and should be evaluated against the actual edit history and the applicable restriction, rather than treated as established merely because they were asserted by another editor.

I recognize that there may be disagreement over the interpretation of Birbal's ancestry. My request is therefore that the competing claims be assessed according to the quality, relevance, and actual contents of their cited sources, and that the underlying sourcing dispute not be conflated with allegations of misconduct without examining the relevant evidence.

Relevant diffs:

• [[Special:Diff/1377646033]] — CoffeeCrumbs's 09:20 UTC revert removing the Sinha-supported material.
• [[Special:Diff/1377649957]] — restoration/removal sequence involving the cited Sinha material.
• [[Special:Diff/1377651478]] — subsequent revert.
• [[Special:Diff/1377652004]] — subsequent statement concerning WP:LOUTSOCK.
• [insert diff(s) showing removal of the sourcing discussion from [[Talk:Birbal]]].

I request an objective review of the sourcing, Talk-page conduct, and subsequent editing/conduct allegations based on the actual revision history and cited sources.

Aaranyaka (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If you used an AI to write this, please don't. We want to hear from you directly as a human being. We do not expect perfect grammar and spelling, nor do we expect fluent English, but we do need you to get your point across without the aid of an AI. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If this has been brought to Arbitration Enforcement, this matter should be handled there. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Would be nice if AI were banned from talk pages and discussions as well as from editing articles. Wikipedia stands like a guardian of literate human creativity and ability, and every time someone uses AI to communicate lessens their personal functionality within what used to be societal norms of communication. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a guardian of anything. It's just some random website that has a lot of articles about Pokemon. Don't get an inflated sense of what's going on here, and don't try to use Wikipedia to save society or twist it into a sanctuary for what you believe in. However, comments generated (instead of refined) by LLMs are already forbidden on talk pages. People are perfectly allowed by guidelines to refine their own words, and, honestly, the aggressive hatting at ANI is starting to annoy me. I shouldn't have to click on "show" to see what an complaint at ANI says. This is a pointless extra step that self-appointed ANI clerks are adding. These self-appointed clerks are using the "collapse" tag as a badge of shame instead of actually helping out with anything. I find it annoying, personally. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it ends up being a question of what people, in general, find more annoying - Clicking a button to uncollapse or wasting time reading AI-generated comments that, more often than not, do not describe real problems or are complaints not rooted in policy. Personally, I find the latter significantly more annoying. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I think we also have to consider that it isn't just the time taken to read the comments which have had no real human involvement in making them. It's that it can easily be pointless to do much else. While editors have been confused over ECR even before LLMs, still I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering if LLMS are the reason the editor is not getting the message that "You cannot edit this content and no we don't care how right you are and how wrong CoffeeCrumbs or whoever is. It's irrelevant. Until you are extended-confirmed without gaming, please stop making these edits or you will be blocked to force you to stop." which after all is a somewhat simple message. If an editor is largely just sticking stuff into LLMs without reading or trying to understand anything themselves, this could easily happen. And it's incredibly frustrating to spend time to try and correct the editor when the editor isn't making the effort themselves to understand. No one comes here to talk to LLMs and so if we can do anything to tell the editor we're going to ignore you until you actually take the time to read and understand stuff yourself and respond with your own words, that's for the best IMO. It's not like the editor wasn't already told the basics before they came here. They were and still failed to get it. And the fact the editor left in the '[insert diff(s) showing removal of the sourcing discussion from Talk:Birbal].' really makes you wonder whether they're really reading & understanding much of anything they're doing. Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Look. ANI is serious stuff. A bare handful of editors here can c-ban people, admin input or permission not required. If you're going to file an ANI complaint, it had better be on point, it had better be for a very valid reason, and you should be prepared to put some time and effort into compiling and presenting your evidence. If you respond to one, more of the same. I sure as hell am not going to evaluate anything based on someone spending five seconds getting a chatbot to complain on their behalf (and, oftentimes, getting it wrong). If you cannot phrase a serious complaint in your own words, if you cannot rebut an ANI complaint in your own words, then you lack the competence to be trusted to edit this encyclopedia. Ravenswing 16:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Fortunately, that's already the case. See WP:EPAI and WP:LLM. Jako96 (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Anyway... Since the OP is not extended confirmed and their changes were sub-optimal anyway, I have partial-blocked them from Birbal. Black Kite (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• They've just spouted the same LLM-generated stuff over my talkpage. I'm considering just indeffing them at this point, as they're wasting everyone's time. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• And another blob of LLM-generated stuff vomited onto my talkpage. Enough. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Harassment by Electricmemory

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

---

Electricmemory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to start a campaign of harassment after taking umbrage to myself asking another editor to discuss things civilly at a content dispute - . Despite being informed that the matter was resolved (the other editor and I have continued discussing in a more civil manner and are working on getting the content dispute resolved), they decided to respond with WP:POINTY comments and borderline personal attacks . Now, they are harassing me on my talk page - , and despite having been told explicitly that they were not welcome on my talk page (something that I told them a long time ago), they have continued to spam me with warning templates in violation of WP:OWNTALK. . Given their history on this noticeboard , I'm beginning to wonder if they're compatible with a collaborative project - however at a bare minimum, please block them from my user talk. I have no desire to interact with them, and despite my informing them of this they are still spamming it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It's worth saying that they removed the ANI notice from their talk page with the edit summary WP:POTKETTLE heed your own harsh words and get away from my talk page - in case they were unaware, editors are required by policy to leave ANI notifications, and that overrides WP:OWNTALK. Leaving repeated warning templates after being asked to stop is not required, and is harassment. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

1. Support indefinite block: for a variety of reasons, especially the recent trolling. This is getting out of hand. Thank you for bringing the matter here. Edit: Originally replied to this comment. Jako96 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
2. Support: Indefinite block for misuse of warning templates and harassment. In solidarity, KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
3. Support indefinite block: This user has a long history of being problematic. I remember back in March when they kept edit warring on an airport page despite numerous editors disagreeing with their version and even having the audacity to say something like "it's not up to me to revert your vandalism" to Danners430, which makes it clear that they are assuming bad faith (they also immediately restored their preferred edits after their edit war block expired). The warning templates that were added on Danners' talk page today is clear harassment. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 21:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

You know what? Lets monitor their activity and see how they behave after their 1 week block expires and then we can determine whether or not we should indef them. Since they've now been blocked from editing Danners430's talk page and was the editor that Electricmemory mainly harassed, maybe they don't need to be indeffed and we can instead issue an interaction ban, prohibiting them from interacting with Danners (whether that would be through pings, talk page discussions, edit summaries, etc). --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 23:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I made my justifications well clear in that incident, and I stand by them. I did not assume any faith in anyone; purely reverted what constituted disruptive editing by the written definitions, others' disagreements aside. I've also made my justifications clear for the warnings on Danner's talk page. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 21:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

"A campaign of harassment" is utterly ridiculous. Mind you this began because I pointed out your own hypocritical behavior via linking to an on-Wiki essay which you inappropriately refactored accusing me of leaving a personal attack, which it was not in any sense of the term. You tell me I am not welcome on your talk page, great, but then you turn around and dump warnings on mine despite the notice at the top saying I don't want them, and you decided to leave a final warning (an inappropriate leap in levels) for the nonexistent PA. As per the warnings I left on your talk page, they were for inappropriate usage of edit summaries, under which demeaning and condescending edit summaries directed towards me fall under. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 20:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, you have not until today ever told me that I am unwelcome on your talk page. It was level 4 because of your history of animosity towards me. And the warnings you left on my talk page were a blatant violation of WP:OWNTALK - you were told straight up to stay off my talk page and instead decided to troll/harass by leaving two further templates on that talk page. That is unacceptable. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Placing Template:Don't template me at the top of my talk page, right next to where you have clicked so many times to create a new topic, is not different in any manner compared to yelling at somebody in an edit summary to leave your talk page. Warning levels are not an never have been affected by previous history unrelated to the topic itself, and using perceived personal grievances as an excuse for posting a made-up warning on my talk page is, again, ridiculous. As per the other two warnings, they were not troll-mannered behavior at all, they were warnings concerning your inappropriate usage of edit summaries to demean and harass me further. I see you also dumped a warning on the talk page of the other user you disagreed with in the FlyDubai discussion despite then removing their own identical message from your talk page 17 minutes afterwards. This is the epitome of WP:POTKETTLE which leads back to the reason this began in the first place. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 21:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

You were the one who was "using perceived personal grievances as an excuse for posting a made-up warning". Jako96 (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Danners did that. He left a level 4 warning on my talk page for something that quite plainly wasn't a personal attack of any sort. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 21:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Also (and this will be my final reply to Electricmemory as there’s no point in engaging with them), you claim my edit summaries were inappropriate. They were: Electricmemory how many more times do you need to be told you're not welcome on this talk page? and You have been told numerous times now to stay off this talk page. You are not permitted to post here except to post required notices. - despite both of these, you immediately followed up with yet another warning template. First, there is literally nothing whatsoever wrong with those edit summaries - and second, it cannot have been made clearer that you are unwelcome on that talk page. And yet you still posted more. That is trolling and harassment, which is why you’re here today. I will not be replying to any of your comments unless requested by an uninvolved party. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Both of those previous ANI discussions you linked to were closed as pointless wastes of time, closures which are detailed in the boxes on the top. Both were content disputes and the second more or less explicitly states that you should not have opened the ANI discussion about it. So why bring them up at all now? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 21:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Leaving here for the records that despite me having Template:Don't template me on my talk page for quite awhile, in that time Danners has left countless warning templates on my talk page regardless. Such behavior is no different. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 21:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

You placing that template in your talk page doesn't make it a policy that using a warning template in your user place is a violation, it is not. Such behaviour is different, you posted warnings for things Danners didn't do. Jako96 (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright, you disagree. Personally I don't take kindly to condescendingly worded edit summaries with my name linked in them. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 21:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Even if it was no different, which is most certainly is not, "they did something wrong to me so I get to do something wrong to them" is not how things work on Wikipedia. Saying "don't template me" is a request that, if violated, merits a grumbling. Saying "do not post on my talk page anymore" is a request that, if violated, leads to a block for WP:HARASSMENT. The fact you saw fit to respond to this in this fashion, and then to this like this, is absolutely harassment and WP:POINTY to boot. I have blocked Electricmemory for a week, and imposed an indefinite pblock as well from Danners430's talk page. This should not be considered as prejudicing any additional sanctions if they are felt necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

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

~2026-52558-41

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

---

Please revoke TPA. See edits at User talk:~2026-52558-41. International Fujita scale (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

seems more like an AIV thing, pretty clear cut imo pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

TPA has now been revoked. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

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

JustSomeGoodInfo - ongoing AI use, incivility

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

Multiple warnings for LLM use from separate people, most recently uw-ai3 here; having also just looked at their edits myself they are the usual mid/late 2026 AI stuff.

The user did not respond to any of these notifications but did respond to a pagemove notification in Special:Diff/1377281004 with what's wrong with you?, that station was renamed 5 freaking years ago, check the news or the goddamn signboard on the station which does not suggest a cooperative attitude. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I do see they were given warnings in the past, thats very concerning. If they're deliberately ignoring the talk page/trying to avoid it would fall under WP:ICANTHEARYOU i imagine. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, those edits look like LLM output. Would be nice to have a smoking gun like a utm_source=chatgpt to point to, but I guess they're not making it as easy for us these days. Blocked indefinitely. Maybe they'll make an unblock request using their own words. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

M.H. Mazumder Azu140217 lack of communication

M.H. Mazumder Azu140217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ongoing insertions of unsourced information with no edit summaries despite multiple warnings, with no replies. Maybe a temp block to get their attention and elicit a response here? ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 10:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• I'm inclining toward a block here but the thing is, most of their edits are in things like Indian filmographies where nothing at all is verified to begin with. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Possibly a simple article space block? If they start communicating, that can easily be lifted and they can resume their editing. Given they're editing from a mobile device, it could well be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, so that may be the only way to get their attention. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
    • User:Danners430, I thought about it and I blocked for a week. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

      Oh, by the way you (probably accidentally) blocked them sitewide. You might think about limiting it to only article space instead. Jako96 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  • I've been attempting to make inroads there, but it's an uphill battle for sure. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 17:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced edits on two TAs

~2026-52766-19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2026-52388-46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These two have the same IP and ~2026-52766-19 made their account a few days after they got a level 3 warning for adding unsourced content. I wasn't entirely sure if this was an AIV issue so I apologize if I should've reported it there instead. Streetr4 (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• I warned them. It might be the same user but that's not a given. Streetr4, be careful about reverting too much, not just to steer clear of 3R, but also to give others a chance to weight in--if someone else reverts, "editing against consensus" is an easier charge to make. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Mbappe111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  I can't confirm a connection here but I think this also might be the same editor. Here however I'd say it's more clear because they've had their numerous MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY violations ( ) and unexplained removals reverted by multiple editors on British Mirpuris ( ). Streetr4 (talk) 17:08, 1 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)

~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)

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)

High volume of possibly harmful edits to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley page

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

---

Noticed large volume of edits by an unregistered user of headings/section titles on Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley. I'm not sure if this is just a good faith mistake and a lot of it but it doesn't seem to adhere to proper titling conventions. CloverTheCrow (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If you don't like the edits, you can revert them. You don't need permission from an administrator do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Category disruption

~2026-52989-87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding a letter at the end of category pages and immediately removing them. I'm not sure whether this falls under clear vandalism but it is disruptive enough that it needs administrators' attention. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 18:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

It almost looks like they're trying to WP:GAME extended confirmed, but hasn't realized that TA's can't get extended-confirmed status. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Weird edits. Blocked temporarily to stop the disruption. If it starts up again, let me know, and I'll look further into it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

TPA revoke request

~2026-52916-54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Can I get a TPA yoink on this TA? They're misusing their talk page while blocked Netstars22 (talk to me!) 21:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)