Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Repeated removal of sourced Egyptian inventors by MrOllie

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

---

User MrOllie has repeatedly reverted my addition of Egyptian inventors to Category:Egyptian inventors.

Examples: 1. Mohamed Sanad - Article states "Egyptian electrical engineer" and lists 16 patents. 2. Gamal Refai-Ahmed - Article states "Egyptian-Canadian-American" and has a "Publications and patents" section.

Per category definition, it is for "inventors from Egypt". Both meet nationality + inventor criteria.

The category has only 5 entries and hasn't been updated since 2024. I have stopped reverting to avoid an edit war.

Request: Can an admin review if "patents + Egyptian origin" qualifies for this category, and advise MrOllie accordingly?

Thank you.ن ~2026-42101-88 (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

No, that would not be enough. Patent listings are primary sources; you need secondary sources that someone is known for being an inventor or X or Y or Z. This is a content issue, not a conduct issue. You should not be forcing through a change. After the first reversion, you should have started discussing it, not forcing the edit. Also, you need to notify MrOllie, as you're instructed to when you started this thread. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Besides the sourcing problems, several of these category tag additions are redundant with categories already on these articles, and they're being added up in the lead sections of the articles - as I already explained to the TA on their talk page, to no response. MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I have stopped reverting as advised.

However I believe this is a conduct issue, not just content.

The reason: selective removal.

Examples:

1. MrOllie removed Mohamed Sanad and Gamal Refai-Ahmed from Category:Egyptian inventors for "primary source patents".

2. At the same time, Category:Israeli inventors has 100+ entries with the same type of sourcing and was not touched.

Additionally, he removed Mohamed Hashish, who is described as "the inventor of the water jet cutter" in multiple secondary sources like BBC and NYT. This suggests the removals are targeted.

This looks like WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS.

I am notifying MrOllie of this thread now as required.

Can an admin please review if this pattern is acceptable? Ahmed200829 (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Just because somewhere else has a problem does not mean it's okay to repeat that problem somewhere else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

If primary source patents are not allowed, then they should be removed from all nationality categories, not just Egyptian ones.

Kind regards Ahmed200829 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you drop this. You got the category tagging wrong, it happens. MrOllie corrected it. You may not like that, but IMO there's nothing to be gained from pursuing this further, this should never have been brought to ANI in the first place. (And no, it's not SYSTEMIC BIAS.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Except you didn't start out by saying "Well, he didn't remove those from all nationality categories." You started out by explicitly saying MrOllie didn't go after Israeli inventors. Why not (say) German inventors, with several hundred more entries than Israeli? Why not American inventors, with several thousand more entries than Israeli? Why single out Israeli inventors? And you're claiming that MrOllie is the biased one here? Ravenswing 21:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Then you should get right on it then perhaps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

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

FlightDelivery - persistent and repeated unsourced content addition

FlightDelivery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had two separate level 4 warnings about unsourced content, one of which they even replied to, and yet they are still continuing with their unsourced additions - (specifically a source that didn't verify the content here). They've also repeatedly been removing perfectly good, sourced content without any explanation or reason.

At this point, given the behaviour has been continuing despite numerous warnings, I'm really struggling to assume good faith... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block, since he still continued after a lot of time. Jako96 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Just keeping this open Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Keeping the archive bot at bay Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that they’re continuing to edit while this thread is open… @FlightDelivery please come to ANI and address the concerns raised. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I was only removing unreferenced or incorrect content. If those sources are valid, I kindly ask that you provide the proper citations, if you think they are baseless. My edits were made with good intentions to improve the reality of the articles. FlightDelivery (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I posted four recent diffs above where you in fact added unsourced content. Your user talk is full of warnings about adding unsourced content. Why? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I was solely removing outdated and unreferenced content to keep the article accurate. Asking for a reference to prove that a non-existent or obsolete fact is no longer true is a logical contradiction. My edits were made in good faith to improve the articles, and the claims about my user talk page are being used out of context to misrepresent my contributions. FlightDelivery (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@FlightDelivery, there are four diffs in the initial report that show you adding unsourced content. Please explain those edits. Schazjmd (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep. Jako96 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

collapsing duplicate lengthy posts

The first two alerts actually refer to the exact same thing: a route stopping its operations on September 12, 2026. First, I labeled it as seasonal, and then I updated it with the exact end date. Naturally, there is no news article for this, because airlines rarely issue press releases just to announce they are cutting a route. However, anyone can easily verify this live on www.Vueling.com. Leaving this there is leaving 'dead information' on Wikipedia.

The third alert was similar—another route ending on October 24, 2026, which can also be checked directly on their website. In this case, a local newspaper eventually reported on the cancellation (after my Wikipedia entry was flagged, btw), and I added that article as well. So my entry was flagged, only to be accepted a few days or weeks later once a newspaper reported the exact same thing I had originally noted on Wikipedia (and they maybe saw it on Wikipedia themselves before publishing and before my entry was removed).

As for the fourth case, it involved new routes that I added using the official airline website link (www.wizzair.com) the moment they were announced and were on sale in their website. A few hours later, news outlets confirmed them, and press links were added right after.

Regarding the other five edits where this person claims I removed content 'without explanation,' it was actually the complete opposite. Those were routes that hadn't operated for years and had zero references. How is it possible to source something that was already wrong (that doesn't exist) on Wikipedia? And once more, anyone can go to those airlines' websites right now and check it live.

Therefore, saying my content is 'unsourced' is completely false. I was simply updating the pages with real airline schedules—often providing information even faster than the media, while cleaning up outdated, unreferenced data that had been rotting there for years.

If the alternative is dealing with this level of gatekeeping (not being able to remove outdated, false information because there are no sources - other than the airline websites — to prove that something doesn't exist in the first place), I’d rather stop editing and let the pages for these three airports die out, just like so many other Spanish and European airports where nobody updates a single thing anymore—probably for this exact reason. FlightDelivery (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The first two alerts actually refer to the exact same thing: a route stopping its operations on September 12, 2026. First, I labeled it as seasonal, and then I updated it with the exact end date. Naturally, there is no news article for this, because airlines rarely issue press releases just to announce they are cutting a route. However, anyone can easily verify this live on www.Vueling.com. Leaving this there is leaving 'dead information' on Wikipedia.

The third alert was similar—another route ending on October 24, 2026, which can also be checked directly on their website. In this case, a local newspaper eventually reported on the cancellation (after my Wikipedia entry that was flagged, btw), and I added that article as well. So my entry was flagged, only to be accepted a few days or weeks later once a newspaper reported the exact same thing I had originally noted on Wikipedia (and maybe they even saw it on Wikipedia themselves before publishing and before my entry was removed).

As for the fourth case, it involved new routes that I added using the official airline website link (www.wizzair.com) the moment they were announced and on sale in their website. A few hours later, news outlets confirmed them, and press links were added right after.

Regarding the other five edits where this person claims I removed content 'without explanation,' it was actually the complete opposite. Those were routes that hadn't operated for years and had zero references. How is it possible to source something that was already wrong (that doesn't exist) on Wikipedia? And once more, anyone can go to those airlines' websites right now and check it live.

Therefore, saying my content is 'unsourced' is completely false. I was simply updating the pages with real airline schedules—often providing information even faster than the media, while cleaning up outdated, unreferenced data that had been rotting there for years.

If the alternative is dealing with this level of gatekeeping (not being able to remove outdated, false information because there are no sources - other than the airline websites — to prove that something doesn't exist in the first place), I’d rather stop editing and let the pages for these three airports die out, just like so many other Spanish and European airports where nobody updates a single thing anymore—probably for this exact reason. FlightDelivery (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You added information without citing your sources. Telling us now, here, where you got the information doesn't help the reader who wants to verify the information. Do you understand that you need to cite your sources in the article for content that you add? Schazjmd (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand how the citation rules work. But my point is just that airlines rarely issue press releases when they quietly drop a route or change a schedule.

If official airline websites can't be used as a source (that is why I was flagged) to check that a route is no longer on sale (which is easily verifiable, and at the end of the day the airline itself is the most reliable source), and there's no news article for it, editors are forced to choose between leaving dead, false information on the page (some of the routes I removed hadn't been operated for years) or getting flagged for removing it.

If that's simply how the system has to work, then so be it. In that case, I'll just stop updating these pages and let them sink with years of outdated information (making them completely useless), just like so many other airports. FlightDelivery (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. See WP:TRUTH and WP:V, verifiability is important, not the truth. Also, I'm pretty sure those websites can be used as sources too, as it's about their own information. Jako96 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There’s nothing wrong with using primary sources such as airline websites - it’s only an issue if booking engines or flight search engines are being used, as they fall foul of WP:SYNTH Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and pointing me to those guidelines. Good to know that direct primary sources from the airline's website are acceptable for route availability, as long as it's not a booking engine. I'll make sure to include those direct links as references moving forward. I hope this discussion can be considered closed. FlightDelivery (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If you promise that you won’t make any further unsourced edits or remove content without giving a reason, then yes that’s fine. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson - disruption at ITN (again)

@user:Andrew_Davidson is at it again. His latest contribution is this flagrantly biased and arguably racist section heading. When challenged about it, he responded with some waffle about the obscure word 'irruption': .

But this is hardly the only disruptive thing Andrew has done at ITN recently. Here he falsely claims that a sporting event 'needs' a picture in order to be posted. Here, here, here, here, and in many other places, he again repeats his misleading arguments about numbers of page views, which he has been repeatedly asked not to use at ITN, as the existing viewership of a page is not a good guide to whether it should be posted. Here and here he introduces a similarly irrelevant argument about the front pages of Wikipedias in several other languages. Here he makes a !vote of 'Firestorm' rather than 'Support' or 'Oppose'. Here he shows his long-held bias against national elections in small nations, a topic which is an agreed part of ITN/R.

It's not just the principles of ITN that are at issue, though. Andrew is determined to be the class clown or the contrarian rebel at every turn. Here he describes France (a republic with a centre-right government) and Spain (a monarchy with a centre-left social-democratic government) as 'politically much the same' simply because they are EU members. Here, in response to a very focussed proposal about how elections are reported at ITN, he introduces a highly disruptive alternative proposal that was not part of the drafting consultation. Here he describes Australian far-right politician Pauline Hanson as a 'feisty... battle-axe... of special interest' - sexist terminology, as well as a fascinating disclosure of personal interest. Here he inserts an image from 1960 into a discussion about a contemporary space travel story. Here he reverted another editor's collapsing of his soapboxing in an ITNC discussion - something he's done on previous occasions, too. Here he nominates a Wikipedia user ban as an ITN story. Here he introduces a picture of mythological Irish fish into a discussion of the collapse of government in Gaza.

None of this is OK. None of this actually assists in the production of good content for ITN - in fact it gets in the way of it, including of stories which Andrew himself wants posted and which he has done good work on. But Andrew doesn't seem content to contribute - he simultaneously wants ITN to run exactly his way and no other, and also to be able to use it as the platform for his personal stand-up act. Neither of those tendencies is good for collaborative encyclopedia-building. Both at once is disastrous. I propose a topic ban from ITN/C, ITN talk and all related pages for at least six months. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

To add: Here Andrew says (regarding the leak of details of Peter Thiel's Dialog organisation): Wikipedians who hide behind super sekrit pseudonyms can't really complain about others who discuss the world's affairs in private but so it goes. This was a flagrant group attack on all of us who don't use our real names to edit Wikipedia. It's also a ludicrous false equivalence - publicly but pseudonymously discussing the development of an encyclopedia is very different to privately discussing the direction of nations and corporations. This is, to me, characteristic both of Andrew's contempt for other users of Wikipedia and especially of ITNC, and of the kind of tendentious reasoning he tends to deploy when he's got a snippy little political point to make. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't really agree with Andrew but what is the actual issue here? He is welcome to have his own opinion. The way you're phrasing all of this ("a snippy little political point to make") only reassures me that this thread is entirely politically motivated. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a particular opinion on the user Andrew in general. But I frequently discuss directions of nations and corporations with my friends, is this an ominous thing to do? Deamonpen (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This has gone on too long. Many times he has been brought to ANI for his disruption at ITN. Another complaint was brought up and discussed at lengths just 4 (!) months ago. Many there expressed that he should be warned but not TBANned, but now he has continued to disrupt. I said then that "the vast majority of interactions I have with him are non-productive" and this still stands. He sometimes bring good points, but those are massively outweighed by the amount of nonsense and disruption he brings. I supported no more than a 1 year TBAN from ITN back then, and I support the same now. I've had enough. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: as the nominator's mention does not seem to have worked. Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Indef as DE or at a bare minimum, indefinite topic ban from ITN. Andrew Davidson's trolling has gone on long enough. Yes, that's exactly what his ITN behavior is and has been for years. He has long since exhausted community patience which does nothing to help the reforms that are needed at ITN. Star Mississippi 01:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose any action against Andrew, it is not an infraction of any sort to ignore ITN's made up fantasy rules. Support boomerang against GenevieveDEon for persisting in this ownership of ITN after warning from Andrew and others. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  While ITN's rules can be a bit washy this crosses further into sitewide policies. Andrew has been disruptive, and most of us agree on that. And all this has been going on for years, certainly as long as I can remember. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  ITN's rules are indeed quite flexible. I've tried to focus on points where (a) Andrew's behaviour is off-base in other ways, relating to site-wide policy, such as political POV-pushing like the most recent incident (b) Andrew disrupts ITN to campaign against local consensus - a campaign he should be able to pursue, but for which there are appropriate venues which are not live ITNC discussions (c) Andrew spams ITN with lines of argument which have been widely described as disruptive in the past, and from which a large number of ITN editors have asked him to desist. I reject thebiguglyalien's accusation that I am violating WP:OWN with respect to ITNC; as I have attempted to show in my evidence above (and I also believe the previous ITN case shows) it is Andrew who acts as though he owns ITNC, in treating it as his personal playground. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think you’ll find it’s a lot more of us than just Genevieve that have issues with Andrew’s trolling. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Warn I notice that the only previous AN/I was closed with There is no consensus thart Andrew Davidson's conduct at ITN rises to the level of requiring sanctions.. Before TBAN, I'd suggest a community warning, as the bare minimum. If that's not an option, then I Support temp TBAN and definitely Oppose indef or any other full block. byteflush _Talk 01:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  The only previous ANI does not appear to take in his "retired"/alternate account which has a longer block log than this one. Star Mississippi 02:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  I was unaware of his alternate account. I was aware of his current account's other TBANs, which were alluded to in the previous ANI about ITN. That report, at least, should make for instructive reading in contextualising the current complaint. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Would it be possible to provide the name of his alternative account? It seems relevant to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  While they have this one linked from the alternate, they don't have the alternate linked from this one. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to disclose it here, but in my opinion as a fellow editor not as an admin, @Andrew Davidson probably should disclose in both directions. Star Mississippi 02:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  My understanding if that this isn't a "clean start" then linkage is required: WP:ALTNOTIFY. The account doesn't qualify as a clean start, as there was a significant overlap when both accounts were used at the same time. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Rsjaffe my understanding is they retired the alternate as a condition of being unblocked. They've used it since, albeit not disruptively. I'm not sure what the current status is and if there was a one account restriction. Star Mississippi 03:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, in the "battle-axe" comment, Andrew Davidson specifically linked that word to our page Battle-axe (woman), which describes the term as a derogatory traditional stereotype. And the ITN heading he chose to use this morning lead with the phrase "Migrant invasion". GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It's been pointed out below that the 'invasion' characterisation of the tragic incident in Ceuta was echoing the words of a Spanish far-right politician. While the majority of Andrew's grandstanding is less overtly political than this, I think that in this case the disruptive nature of hate speech is relevant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I try to avoid !voting in AN/I discussions, but, after a few days, and in light of other comments below: Support anything from a warning to an indefinite block - essentially per theleakycauldron, Cullen, and Star Mississippi. It doesn't matter which way you cut the underlying dispute, after a while: let's say that Andrew Davidson's behaviour is problematic. Then anything from the warning to the block makes sense. Let's say it's not -- let's say it's the ITN regulars which are the problem, and that we should start sanctioning/warning them. Great! Let's look at the past 50,000 contributions on WP:ITN/C on Xtools -- and we see that Andrew Davidson leads both the "number of edits" (w/ 18.7%)and "added text" categories (w/ 20.7%). That's much, much, much more than any other editor -- ITN is his, and I don't think it's possible to say, in good faith, that he lacks any responsibility for any toxicity there. But let's just suppose that all his contributions are valuable, and perfect. And some of them are valuable, yes, but in the past month we've also had behaviours such as:

• Supporting an article for a blurb because it had an image and ran on the front page of other language editions -- when editors pointed out inconvinient things like how it was "missing too many citations" (a major part of WP:V, he instead said the reason people weren't posting it on enWiki was due to dysfunctional delay and drama.
• Opposing a nom because it didn't have an image -- try doing that at GA or DYK, and you'd be laughed out of the room.
• Again, implying he would have opposed an article if it didn't have an image.
• And a large number of comments that are devoted to complaining about ITN in general. , for just a few.

And, outside of the actual candidates page, we have such behaviour such as:

• attacking an editor's contributions as "unfriendly" because they uploaded a better supported version of an image. He described it as unfriendly because, in his own words it made upload obsolete and so will remove my contribution (to the article). Not the worse case of WP:OWNERSHIP that I've seen, but it's certainly not something I'd expect from an experienced editor.
• Describing editors working on Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models of trying to use the equivalent of the one-drop rule -- because we can't oppose a rule without making inflammatory references to racial discrimination, I suppose?

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 02:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Andrew has consistently been a time-sink at ITN, between nominations that border on silly and (far more often) comments/tirades that are absolutely inane, but the overt racism of “invasion” is a new one. Support a well-earned TBAN from ITN, but unsure if there’s enough for much more than that. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just a note, in the NYT source Andrew provided, the word invasion does appear... Though only once, and in this context: “This is an invasion,” said Santiago Abascal, the leader of the far-right party Vox byteflush _Talk 02:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for this useful context. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  .....though unsurprising that a far right politician would describe the movement of migrants as an "invasion". 331dot (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see any evidence here that Davidson's comments violate any particular policy or guidance that I could see. Having looked at ITN many times in the past that it is highly subjective in nature and conflicting views are both necessary and vital for the system to function like any other newsroom. Its seems both a symptom and a part of the underlying process if anything can be said about it. scope_creep^Talk 02:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Conflicting views are fine and as you point out "both necessary and vital for the system to function". However, referring to a living person as a battle axe (well known as a derogatory statement) without a source is a minor violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It also displays his views on women in general and makes it hard to know if he is able to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 19:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  @CambridgeBayWeather: That's true. The battle-axe comment was a really poor choice of words. But "invasion" is the right word in that context, from a NYT article, as well. While the Spanish are superbly at ease with migration, parts of it aren't and large parts of Europe and the USA aren't. So can't see a reason why it can't be used in that context. scope_creep^Talk 08:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  Was only referring to the battle axe part. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 15:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from ITN, appealable no sooner than one year from now. That sexist "battle axe" remark is a bridge too far for me, no matter what I personally think of Hanson or her politics. Calling a living person a "battle axe" is a policy violation. Andrew Davidson has been borderline disruptive for many years, especially at ITN of late. The recent disruption documented here is serious enough that the editor needs this sanction. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm a regular at ITN where my activity is entirely good faith and productive. In this case, notice that there are only two nominations at WP:ITN/C for July 30. My nomination for the 2026 Morocco–Spain border incident has attracted several supports and one comments that I was about to nominate it, but Andrew was faster.. The other nomination by someone else for FIFA Forward Enterprise has attracted no support and seems likely to be snow-closed. This pattern seems typical of ITN where there are few nominations and many do not survive the intense opposition.
  So, ITN is a tough row to hoe but I manage to get things done despite the heat. Here's a list of the topics for which I got formal ITN recognition so far this year, collated from my talk page – a mix of nomination and update contributions which made it through to the main page. It demonstrates the level and variety of topics. Naturally not all topics go so well but "big hitters strike out a lot".
  • Khaleda Zia
  • Greenland crisis
  • World Health Organization
  • Epstein files
  • Jesse Jackson
  • Robert Duvall
  • 2026 Iranian Supreme Leader election
  • Country Joe McDonald
  • Hjálmar H. Ragnarsson
  • Gerd Faltings
  • Chuck Norris
  • Mary Rand
  • Ngogo chimpanzee war
  • Ned (snail)
  • 2026 London Marathon
  • J. Craig Venter
  • Shirley Porter
  • 2026 Ituri Province Ebola epidemic
  • Felicity Lott
  • Magnifica Humanitas
  • David Hockney
  • Major Oak
  • Alan Greenspan
  • Penelope Keith
  • Vladimir McTavish
  • Ann Widdecombe
  • 2026 Wimbledon Championships
  • Garfield Sobers
  • Sam Neill
  • Likweli
  • David Willey (journalist)
• There is much that one could say about many of these cases which generated extensive discussion at ITN. The point is to show the full range of activity which naturally generates some disagreement over the details. If this is punished then it would tend to have a chilling effect and so make ITN even more dysfunctional.
  Andrew🐉(talk) 06:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict)

  This is another example of a derailing argument. You don't get to own the discussions at ITNC just because you have plenty of free time and earn credits for yourself in successful postings. We shouldn't act like very prolific posters can earn the 'right' to be racist, sexist, disruptive or proprietary about a key forum in which the site's front-page content is developed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  As someone who participated in WP:ARBMAG, I recall that, though the user who was ultimately sitebanned did often provide constructive edits, it was not a hall pass for long-documented, disruptive behavior. I don't think anyone here who has regularly interacted with you in ITN would downplay what you have contributed to the project, but it might be time to take a break given your disruptions — despite being warned many many times. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 12:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  What does this have to do with anything! We aren't focusing on your history of good, constructive postings but on your behaviour. Regrettably, your poor actions do mean that we cannot have one without the other, and that in my opinion the negatives outweigh the benefits of your participation. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not a huge fan of the "throw a lot of spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks" method of contributing in a collaborative environment. Part of that is knowing when to read the room and when the room tells you that repeating certain arguments you know to not work, won't work- that maybe you should rethink your approach. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral I don't like his arguments, but only the Spain topic is really bothering me. He is free to use arguments about page view counts in his arguments. There is no policy against it. And people are free to ignore him. Thats not a reason to ban him from ITN. But I really, really, really don't like the promotion of right-wing talking point about immigration to western nations. That needs to stop right fucking now. And if more evidence appears of that behavior, or Andrew doesn't back off that right now, I may move to support.--v/r - TP 06:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  You have perhaps already seen but on this vein of reasoning is also Andrew's use of the word Battle-axe (woman) to refer to Australian far-right politician Pauline Hanson. These to me constitute appallingly distasteful racism and sexism. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm a woman and I don't view Andrew's comment that way. It was used in reference to both Pauline Hanson and Ann Widdecombe, both of whom are/were known for their assertiveness and success in a male-dominated space. It's not a PC term but I certainly don't think Andrew meant any harm by it. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's not necessary for him to have 'meant any harm'. What this ANI is about - as was the previous one on Andrew's conduct at ITNC - is the cumulative disruptive effect of his many and varied actions. The fact that some of that also includes sexist terminology and far-right talking points is illuminating, but the overall point is the discourtesy and disruption. WE don't need to provde some high standard of intentional malice - if he's doing it negligently, it's still disruptive. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  You are choosing to feel disrupted by very insignificant things, for example, "a !vote of 'Firestorm' rather than 'Support'" (because God forbid!) and "a picture of mythological Irish fish".

  I feel pretty irritated by the fact that this is even being discussed at ANI because I don't think anything is actionable, but I quell that feeling by just moving on to other things. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support indef TBAN from ITN. I would also support some kind of additional warning that any additional TBANs would result in being blocked for disruption to the project. Considering he's already banned from deletion actitivies and has a long-standing history of being disruptive in RFA, VPR, and DYK (from my reading of threads mentioning him linked in this and the previous discussion a couple of months ago). As good-faith an editor as he may be, we cannot keep punting him across the discussion boards of the project hoping he'll act civilly in the next one. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 06:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  VPR was an imaginary issue and I usually get on fine at DYK. I still do the occasional DYK and my nominations so far this year all seemed to go reasonably well:

  • Craig (elephant)
  • The Boat Race 2026
  • Beijing E-Town Half-Marathon

  These were all topics rejected by ITN but DYK goes comparatively smoothly in my experience.

  There were some ructions at RfA when I dared to oppose some candidates but that was a long time ago; I've been editing Wikipedia for over 20 years now. What you're seeing are mostly WP:ASPERSIONS as ANI discussions tend to generate such mud-slinging. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  If there were consensus to TBAN you from ITN, considering your currently standing ban from deletion activities, "usually [getting] on fine at DYK" is not something that inspires that much confidence. Even if the summary of the VPR and RFA issues were 'casting aspersion' the fact that someone of your experience continues to draw attention wherever you edit for accusations of incivility is not a sign of a collaborative attitude and I hope would inspire deeper reflection than this just being par for the course of participating. I mean, I really struggle to think of areas of the wiki namespace that would inspire less drama than DYK. Your use of terms like 'battle-axe' is well below the standard of someone that has been editing Wikipedia for over 20 years now. The racist terminology in the section heading that prompted this thread also does you no favors. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - ITN does not come across as a place for supportive collegiate behaviours, but that extends to a long list of editors. Given it is a bit of a hothouse, it implies that diversity of expression and opinion is a positive feature that all those involved should embrace, not reject. If you don't like what Andrew says well listen to him, process the argument thoughtfully, then argue against it with candour and feist. Good things come from these debates, censoring people you don't much like leads to the blind person leading the blind. If you think it's actually trolling/disruptive, then don't feed the argument. The complaint about the wildfires "one article or two" due to Andrew reasonably pointing out that both countries are in a very similar position geographically and politically, is a terrible rationale to close down his opinions. I don't always agree with him or some of his choice of expressions, but let's not be frightened of healthy debate from someone not far off the ideological mainstream. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's an error of fact, and irrelevant to the discussion. I'm trying not to read an ulterior political motive into it. But editors should support their arguments with claims that are verifiable and relevant, just as they should their article contributions. If such a claim appeared in article space, I wouldn't bother sticking a CN tag on it, but just remove it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Looking through the diffs in the 'complaint,' I couldn't help but wonder if this was some kind of joke. If an amusing reference to "Salmon of Knowledge" is a major violation of Wikipedia principles and guidelines, frankly, we're in trouble. I did delve a bit further, as there are several senior editors whom I respect that argue for sanctions, but, frankly, I have found almost nothing that would be considered an "urgent" disruption as written in the above description of the purpose of AN/I. In fact (and I am finding myself vaguely nauseated in siding with an editor whose social views I would almost certainly find appalling) it seems that this is more of a political 'hit piece' than a true description of a tendentious or disruptive editor. I do admit that I limited my reading (mostly) to the diffs posted; however, I think the burden of proof lies with the proposer of sanctions. Given that: this is weak sauce, small beer, milquetoast, a nothingburger. "Battleaxe" is the least vitriolic term I have ever seen weaponized. Mentioning the standards of other-language WPs is the most harmless thing I have ever seen stigmatized. I'm not a purveyor of the fallacy of greater privation, but, please, complainers should either make a (much) better case, or, better, go on about their business.Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 07:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Noting others' mention of the loopstick. I don't at all feel like a boomerang applies here. I think, personally, the OP is misguided, but there is no need to make ANI a zero-sum game rather than a rational forum. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 09:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Andrew D.'s quirky posting style and political views may annoy you, but simply not liking someone is not grounds for sanctioning them for disruption, and a lot of these are willfully misleading claims to the point it may just be a WP:BOOMERANG. I say this as someone who thought he was legitimately being disruptive in the past, but this is a pure nothingburger. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel so special being included in every discussion around Andrew's posts. Anyway, a large portion of your complains come around not liking his opinions or posting style, which don't contradict any rules, and frankly wouldn't be that disruptive if it wasn't for the slew of attacking responses they evoke. The use of the word invasion is obviously charged, and I wouldn't use it, but certainly not "flagrantly racist" as many definitions would use the word for non-violent contextes, for example here, "The Tartan Army’s invasion of Boston". Pairing this one minor issue with a myriad of non-issues doesn't create a case.
  "he ... wants ITN to run exactly his way and no other"
  This applies to many many posters on ITN, especially to those who want to TBAN dissenters. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per @Hiobazard; this is a complete nothingburger and Andrew's contributions both to ITN and the wider project make it clear that he is not "trolling".
  Cambridge American English Dictionary defines invasion as "the act of entering a place by force, often in large numbers", which, admittedly, is a pretty accurate description of the situation in Spain. It's definitely not the wording I would use, but do we not have better things to gripe about?
  This entire report can be summed up in five words: "I don't like his views" – too bad. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  and I support a one-way IBAN for the filer, primarily because of their intentional mischaracterisation/oversimplification of some of Andrew's behaviour, as noted by @Unknown Temptation. Serious 'witch hunt' behavior. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Aesurias, with all due respect, such a measure would not be good here and I am quite strongly against it and any other ITN-related one-way IBAN. The nature of ITN is such that a one-way IBAN involving two frequent contributors would seriously harm the affected party's ability to contribute. I also disagree that OP's conduct regarding Andrew is in any way deserving of sanctions. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 02:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Characterizing 50,000 people breaching an international border and being met by military and police force as an invasion is not racist, especially given claims of government complacency . Celjski Grad (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose action per Aesurias and Hiobazard. Suggest close. Jusdafax (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Question. I've seem some mention of standards of behavior at ITN. What are those and where are they documented? I'm not a regular, and every time I'm there I'm struck by how unpleasant the atmosphere is. Mackensen (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are various guidelines but the main ones about behavior are WP:ITNCDO and WP:ITNDONT. Note that the latter includes Please do not... Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Those describing my nomination as racist seem to be violating this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  From my perspective, the bits relevant to this case are:

  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria.

  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

  You have repeatedly - indeed, systematically - violated these two. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Nobody is suggesting you nominated the migrant crisis due to racism or other personal bias. Your wording choice calling it an "invasion" on the otherhand is racist. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  To avoid confusion, reminder that ITN's rules aren't "guidelines" in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and they have no authority over editor conduct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Good reminder. Jahaza (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Initiatives such as these depend on collaboration, which leads to the establishment of specific procedures. If there are procedures agreed upon by consensus in place, participants shouldn't persist in using their disagreement with the procedures as a reason not to follow them. I appreciate that a lot of the time, procedures grow by accretion and there may not have been a specific discussion about new additions. For better or worse, though, the community recognizes consensus by established practice, in some cases with greater weight than consensus by discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  You're using "specific procedures" and "established pratice" and saying he's not following them to mean that most of the folk at ITN disagree with the rationale he uses to form his opinions. The bulk responses here reject the idea that you can have an enforceable "established practice" that says "participants can only base their opinions on rationales that the majority agrees with." And attempts to explicitly write it into the rules failed. This sounds a lot like a "some consensus is more equal than others" argument (which it is, but local consensus is very much not it). ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't investigated this specific situation, so I don't know what consensus already exists or if anyone's comments have contravened it. For better or worse, yes, community consensus can decide on specific criteria as part of a process. Anyone wishing to change the process needs to find consensus to do so. isaacl (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I want to preface by noting that some of the !votes above seem to just be here to justify Andrew's use of "invasion", with no attention given to the broader points brought up for his behavior. I continue... Support temp TBAN (at most) / Warning (at minimum) – Andrew has been a constructive user in ITN, and his high activity and quirky nominations (when not trying to prove a point) are appreciated. However, his behavior has been disruptive and goes beyond a matter of differing opinions — he is made well aware of the appropriate channels to discuss reforming ITN, yet often keeps bringing the same points over and over. Examples:

• Bias against smaller nations – In May 2026, the subnational elections for Scotland and Wales were not posted, which visibly upset Andrew as he continued to bring it up in other nominations. He insulted the nation of Antigua and Barbuda to make a point that Scotland is more significant, saying It would make more sense to go by who has a team in the World Cup. . A very questionable quote from another nomination includes This yet another of King Charles' island microstates. Why is this more significant than his primary realm – the UK? [emphasis added] . Unable to let it go, Andrew snarkily remarks in another unrelated nomination, Seems more significant than most of the leaders we've been posting lately . And another comment: . Andrew eventually uses the ITN talk page to raise his concerns, but weeks later he has reactivated his snarky comments . This is not a matter of differing opinions — it is clear at this point that Andrew is well aware of the appropriate forum (the ITN talk page), but knowingly continues his disruptive behavior in conflict with guidelines 2, 5, and 6 of WP:ITNCDONT.
• Stalling nominations with non-sensical policies – Along with the aforementioned !opposes because an article was missing a photo, Andrew also stalled a nomination because he found the infobox photo to be ghastly . For Ongoing, Andrew recently opposed an item because—unrelated to quality or relevance—the article title was too long .

As a self-described regular, Andrew should and does know better. The disruptive behavior brought up months ago has only continued, showing that the "No consensus" conclusion did nothing to improve things. These are just two points and if there's a need, I can add more examples. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 13:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC) (edited 15:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC))

Ironically, the "ghastly" photo example shows that basically everyone wanted to rubber-stamp an unflattering picture of a deceased actress solely because it was free use in order to get the nomination out the door, and Andrew D. was the one who delayed it until a better one could be found. I would call this evidence of actually caring rather than some sort of disruptive behavior. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The other points still stand. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I will note that Andrew D.'s snarky comments about small island nations were not actually violating ITNCDON'T. It forbids opposing nominations due to disagreements with policy - Andrew D. did not oppose them, only snarkily made his disagreement known with a comment. Saying that he was using it as a "forum" for beliefs with a one-sentence snarky comment is also a stretch.

By the looks of it, the inordinate response to the comments risks being more disruptive than Andrew D. was ever being, if it isn't already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Warn at the very least. I am on the fence about whether or not any sanctions should exceed the level of a warning, but it's clear to me that at least something should be done regarding this user's conduct, which is disruptive. I have no opinion on exactly how disruptive the conduct has been, and will leave that for other editors to decide, particularly those who are involved at ITN. However, I agree that the wording used in the migrant crisis ITN nomination was offensive (at least to some, even if his intentions were good) and that his overall conduct may need community intervention of some kind. I disagree that the Larry Sanger nomination was disruptive in itself, but if it had been me nominating it for ITN I would have held an in-depth discussion on how it should be worded before proceeding with the nomination. I could go on about more specific nominations, but I'll stop there. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 16:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  What usually happens at ITN is that nominations are made and then the discussion takes place. In the course of the discussion, alternative blurbs are often suggested by other editors and the nomination template has specific options to display these alongside the initial suggestion. If blurb is then posted, the ITN admins then usually continue to tinker with the wording. So, I don't agonise over first drafts because they are just the start of the process. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Warn. I'm assuming the OP is female(if not, I apologize, and you need not confirm or deny this)- and if she viewed the battle-axe comment as offensive, I'm sure other female editors do as well and didn't say so; we shouldn't be driving away female editors(as Wikipedia editors skew male). Many of Andrew's less popular nominations seem to be made to make a point(which is itself disruptive, WP:POINT). Andrew should be warned to be more responsive to what the community he chooses to participate in tells him. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Noting that above I left the comment: "I'm a woman and I don't view Andrew's comment that way. It was used in reference to both Pauline Hanson and Ann Widdecombe, both of whom are/were known for their assertiveness and success in a male-dominated space. It's not a PC term but I certainly don't think Andrew meant any harm by it." aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  For the record, I found it sexist in that low-grade paternalistic way that seems more common than not among older men, but also don't think this is worth any sanctions over absent a clear pattern of, specifically, sexism. In a vacuum this comment inspires in me no more negative emotions than an eye roll. Rusalkii (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Between Andrew's POINTy nominations, his recent insistence on derailing discussions by putting images in the middle of the threads, his disregard of quality rules in favor of his own beliefs on what readers care about (emphasizing images while ignoring sourcing), and now the sexism issue, I support a warning to avoid sexist remarks and POINTy comments, making it clear that further misconduct would lead to sanctions. I do appreciate his good-faith edits and have supported nominations Andrew has made, but that doesn't excuse bad behavior. Neutral on a TBAN, I don't outright oppose the idea but I think a warning is a better choice at this stage. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I've said before on one of the many on-ITN proposals that Andrew shouldn't be punished for having the minority opinion. At least one of these, posting concurrent fires in France and Spain on the same line, is fully reasonable, as they are neighbours and part of the EU, which was his stated reason to say they are "politically similar". Separating them because the Spanish head of state is a royal and their government is on the left, no offence, sounds like the kind of opinion that others are pillorying Andrew for holding. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose The labelling of this contribution as racist is a way of trying to intimidate the contributor. It is unacceptable. PalleyCov2030 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction against Andrew Davidson. Considering this topic was discussed at ANI and closed just a few months ago with no consensus for any sanctions against AD, there should be a clear violation to justify this ANI report. The smoking gun appears to be the use of "invasion" at ITN? That wording is consistent with the Spanish government's own description of the subject as an "attack" and "violation of Spain's territorial integrity", per our article at 2026 Morocco–Spain border incident#Government of Spain. Looking through the other diffs provided above as reasoning why AD should be sanctioned, this diff is one where AD is being badgered beneath his !vote at ITN, including a whatabout comparison of the UK prime minister and Hamas. The bottom of the barrel is being scraped if a situation where AD is the editor being badgered—not the one doing the badgering—is included in an ANI report against AD. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  "Invasion" is right out of Stormfront's manual of style and it is deeply disturbing to see the trend of more and more people who condone inhumane and hateful rhetoric feeling comfortable enough to do so in polite company. It's complete hogwash to pretend someone is being censored or they are due the right to use Wikipedia's voice for hate. FineIllDoIt (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Reporting someone for just a little bit of racism and sexism? Boomerang please. Stop trying to suppress intellectual freedom. ~2026-42509-01 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-42509-01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  This !vote is nonsense. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 23:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment and Questions - I do not edit at ITN and do not know much about how it works. What I see is that disputes involving ITN periodically pop up at WP:ANI. I haven't looked into this dispute in depth. It appears that there is, at least from time to time, conduct that needs to be sanctioned. My guess is that there is incivility and other disruptive editing much of the time, and that it only occasionally spills out into WP:ANI. My questions are:
• Can the community deal with conduct issues effectively when it is reported to WP:ANI?
• Is it necessary to identify the ongoing issues and deal with them?
• Is the community capable of dealing with and remedying the ongoing issues?
• Is disruption at ITN an issue that requires the intervention of ArbCom in the form of an evidentiary case?
• My guess is that the community will think it will resolve the problem, but that there will be an ArbCom case on conduct at In the News, and the remaining question is when. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Editors' recurrent comments about ITN having a particularly exclusionary culture within this thread and some semblance of unspoken rules that lead to disputes regarding editor behaviour (rather than content disagreements) sparking at a rate higher than elsewhere in wiki namespace does seem to indicate that having ArbCom take a closer look at the noticeboard would be beneficial. I had not really considered that as a possibility. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 00:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  • I hesitate to divert the discussion, but to my mind that is why we are here. Both the OP and Andrew are part of a mildly toxic setup in ITN, arguably they deserve each other, though it's actually no-one's fault. It's interesting that FA and DYK aren't so problematic. Obviously newshounds tend to come with baggage, someone says "I think this story is interesting", and then a ridiculous Wikilawyer machinery comes out to explain why we cover elections in Niue (1500 voters) but not Scotland (4 million). Some of those on ITN aren't particularly tolerant, get easily triggered, and off it goes. One view is that this is OK, it's creative discussion, twice a year landings in ANI isn't the end of the world, and as the discussion has shown here already there is a wide spectrum of opinions in ANI too. But the downside is that if someone with a Wiki mindset wants to participate in ITN then it's pretty off-putting, it's not a pleasant part of our processes, and hardly a show-case for collaboration. Ideally? We set up two ITN teams, the Nice team and the Nasty team, swap them over every 3 months and both teams learn from each other in their fallow phases. Alternatively do a mass TBAN and get brand new editors in who promise to extoll peace and love at all times. But the output won't be worth reading, it will be like reading a slurpy version of the Christian Science Monitor = ChrysGalley (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• ITN Topic ban at the minimum for the ghastly "migrant invasion" heading, alongside most of the diffs in the third paragraph. The battle-axe one is uniquely gross as well. Shameful stuff. Parabolist (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support
  Using dehumanizing and racist language in the wiki voice for a news item is unacceptable. I see some carping about the code words "intellectual diversity" and of course the old chestnut, "His views are being suppressed (which views?)", but this is wiki's voice for what's in the news, not a Twitter thread, and such language shows either an agenda or lack of judgement that should preclude further access. FineIllDoIt (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Report is borderline frivolous. FWIW, Andrew can be a bit grating at times. And yes, some of his comments or posts have caused some eye rolling on my part. But as others have noted, the OP seems to think that they are the arbiter of rules and procedures at ITN. They are not. And sanctions, including TBans should be reserved for pervasive behavior that is seriously disruptive. Not just mildly annoying or offensive to one's political sensibilities. Support some sort of WP:BOOMERANG for accusations of racism directed at what seems like a perfectly reasonable nom title. (I wouldn't have used that wording myself, but it is certainly not an unreasonable interpretation of events.) This looks like an attempt to impose some kind of political speech code at ITN and an attempt to silence or intimidate editors with views not to the OP's liking. A formal caution directed to the OP would seem to be justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Punishing Genevieve for having justifiable issue with Andrew’s disruptive conduct would be trout-worthy. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment I really do not have enough of a stake in any of this to give a concrete opinion towards a topic ban, but I really, really do not agree with this specific argument, that using the phrase "invader" for anything that is not explicitly an attack makes sense for ITN. Setting aside whether or not it is a racist thing to call migrants (which, to be clear, I think it is, but I am not going to make any argument about that that hasn't already been made), "invader" is extremely loaded language to describe any event that is not, explicitly, an invasion. WP:NPOV should make this phrasing in a blurb unacceptable from the outset.

  Snosibsnob (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Ad Orientum, ITN is not bound by our standard rules. Let people call 'em like they see 'em. Anyone who is offended is probably a battle axe themselves. Or a glaive. ~2026-42547-69 (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-42547-69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —  Blocked sockpuppet.

  This comment does not appear to be constructive. I am obviously WP:INVOLVED so can't act. But if someone wants to revert the above post, I think it would be justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Now, you're wrong If you're trying to shrug this off as "just another view", especially for a part of wikipedia that is curating the news in wiki's voice. You'd used to have to go Stormfront or other racist extremists forums to find that rhetoric. At most, you'll only find "news" outlets which have "invasion" in their manual of style for migration if they are at the extreme far-right fringe. Hate and racism are not ok to use (at all), but especially not in wiki's voice. FineIllDoIt (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose tban. I think what you have here is a few stupid (and potentially offensive) comments and proposals. Andrew does frequently end up on the opposite end of community consensus at ITN/C, but I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing; claims of newsworthiness are fundamentally unfalsifiable, so a broad range of perspectives is healthy. I do however think a warning about general behaviour and language like "invader" and "battleaxe" is reasonable. Perhaps it should be suggested to Andrew that he should pay more attention to the rest of the community's perspective, particularly when he should well know that others in the community are not going to like some of his suggestions (or, in the case of 'invader'/'battleaxe', find them offensive). Endwise (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose This does seem more like an objection to a quirky editing style and maybe some WP:ENGVAR misunderstanding. I'm not really seeing anything that justifies the tban proposed here. I have worked with Andrew on a few ITN nominations (like Ann Widdecombe) and yes there are times where I have had disagreements (like when he sometimes tries to turn an RD into a blurb over the original nominator), I have found he is simply trying to keep ITN up to date. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Posted We should note for the record that the ITN nomination in question has now been posted to the main page ITN template. To help those not familiar with the ITN process, the key points were:
  1. It was posted by the admin Spencer who is a regular ITN admin.
  2. The blurb which was posted was Sixty thousand migrants cross the Morocco–Spain border at Ceuta, leading to at least fifty-seven deaths.
  3. This blurb was alternative blurb #3 which was suggested during the nomination discussion.
  4. The blurb has already been amended to Sixty thousand migrants cross the Morocco–Spain border at Ceuta, leading to at least fifty-seven deaths. by Left guide citing MOS:MORELINK.
  5. This process of blurb evolution is fairly normal at ITN.
  6. Besides posting the blurb, Spencer also updated the nomination to record the posting and kindly credited contributors with ITN recognition which is a token thank-you like a barnstar on their talk page.
  7. The contributors getting recognition were myself as the nominator; Kokoo who I credited as the creator of the nominated article; and Axios512 who was added as an updater of the article.
  8. The issue of the word "invasion" was resolved early in the proceedings. It had been used in an internal section title and this was changed by someone who didn't like it.
• This process of article creation, nomination, discussion, update, refinement and posting by many editors is fairly normal for ITN as topics in the news tend to attract contributors. Meanwhile, our readers have been finding their own way to the topic and the top read article in this case was Ceuta which got over half a million page views yesterday.
  Andrew🐉(talk) 06:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose like I stated in the prior discussion, Andrew's behavior - let's call it Andreanism - is fundamentally a backlash to ITN broken interworking, so there's no point in targeting him since he is merely a symptom. I also disagree with some of the levied accusations (France and Spain are fundamentally different since France's head of state is a President and has a centrist government while Spain's a king and leftist?), including allegations of racism and misogyny (IMO, battle-axe isn't that derogatory, and I wouldn't really use "invasion", but when 60k people very clearly with passive endorsement from the Moroccan government attempt to cross, I can see why that term may be used. So I oppose any action on those grounds, though I do find the idea of two ITN contributors being banned for perceived insensitive comments regarding Hispano-Moroccan border crises funny. — Knightoftheswords 15:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Calling his behaviour a "backlash to TN broken interworking" implies a WP:POINTY motivation that is not the case. I suggest "consequence" might be a better word for what you're thinking, if I understand you correctly, Knightoftheswords281. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Warning only for the offensive content (i.e. the use of "battle-axe" and "invasion"). The diffs presented don't show that Andrew Davidson has engaged in any disruptive behavior at ITN, other than disagreeing with many of its nonsensical rules and labyrinth standards. I oppose any warnings that extends to the supposedly "POINTy" nominations or his commentary at ITN, all of which are perfectly within the norms of Wikipedia WP:PAG. I oppose any sanction beyond a warning, as disagreeing with an orthodoxy doesn't merit a topic ban or indefinite ban.Katzrockso (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Warning is how I would proceed here, in regards to the charged phrasing of the nomination header and the "battle-axe" usage (though I'm not totally sure this wasn't just a poor understanding of the term, giving very extreme benefit of the doubt here, mind you; it's also not a term I'm very familiar with). I believe being warned insofar as another similar incident would confer a ban of some sort is wise. Regarding the other actions...I find a lot of these things annoying, don't get me wrong. They maybe even border on disruptive. But a fundamental fact of ITN (I wouldn't even call it an "issue" as some do) is that users are allowed to use their own reasoning and rationale as to if a blurb should be posted, to a certain degree. While I think the nonsense like pageviews is effectively useless, I think there's nothing wrong with making these comments, as they can be ignored by other editors and mods if they so desire to. So, really, to me, the issue here is the charged language used by Andrew. If others think that alone confers a TBan, I can respect that, but the ITN procedural stuff feels like something too much to ban for, even if it may annoy me or others at times. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  And while I'm not in favor of a ban nor as bothered by Andrew's behavior, anyone calling for a boomerang against Genevieve clearly hasn't been following along with what's been going on here and why some at ITN are so bothered by this behavior. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction or warning - when 60k people illegally enter a place, "invasion" is objectively the correct word. As to "battle axe," that's not cool, but I'd need to see more than one example of sexism to support a sanction. (Andrew, please don't use such terminology again). I've disagreed with Andrew many times, most of the time even, but disagreement is not cause for sanction. There's nothing wrong with arguing that page views should matter, even if that argument is in the minority. I notice a concerning trend recently of trying to ban people for the "crime" of disagreeing with the majority; it seems like a generational thing, but I'm not sure if that's accurate. Sorry, WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE. Welcome to the real world, which is not a safe space or echo chamber. You must tolerate people who disagree with you, because the marketplace of ideas, the free exchange of ideas, only works if we allow people to express ideas we disagree with. ITN has lots of problems, but I'm not convinced Andrew is disrupting it. We should not excise people for holding unpopular opinions. Levivich (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's not "unpopular opinions" that are the issue here, it's the failure to read the room and beating the dead horse after it's dead and its corpse is rotting in the ground. If he feels that page views should matter, he needs to work to change policy to make them matter, not beat the ITN community over the head with "page views! page views! page views!". 331dot (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  No, 331dot, you have that backwards. If you don't think page views are relevant, then you should work to change policy to prohibit arguments based on page views, not try to ban people who feel that page views are relevant. (I guess I was wrong about it being a generational thing.) You can't ban people for disagreeing with you. Levivich (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't have to do any work; not using page views is the community default. He knows this. Again, he needs to read the room. He's not being prohibited from making the argument. He has, it failed- now move on. WP:DEADHORSE. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  The default at ITN is that subjective opinions may be used to determine significance. How people arrive at these opinions is up to them. If I choose to base my view upon evidence such as page views then that's fine by ITN guidelines such as WP:ITNSIGNIF.

  An attempt was made to forbid mention of page views but that failed to gain a consensus because several other editors besides me turned up to oppose it. So, I am not alone and the nay-sayers are the ones who should move on. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  "No page views" is nowhere at WP:ITNATA or anywhere else on that page that I can see. So it's not a rule. You're demonstrating exactly the problem I'm talking about: you have an opinion, and you want to ban someone for expressing a contrary opinion. Levivich (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  That is 2000% incorrect. It's not about the specific opinion. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  331dot, "not using page views" is objectively not the community default. Many editors feel they matter - enough that past attempts to forbid mentioning them have failed to garner a consensus. I agree with Levivich that you have it backwards - if you want a policy to be in place banning page views, then pass an RFC. Otherwise, there is no basis to sanction others who choose to mention them in their !vote rationales. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  That was my experience in a decade at ITN, but okay, I guess I had it wrong. It isn't about the specific opinion, it's about beating people over the head with it. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  I will have no other comment- because I'm reading the room and the consensus is pretty clear to me here, and that's fine. I know when to quit a line of argument. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I often don't agree with Andrew's opinions at ITN, but he's entitled to have them. ITN has very few fixed policies and it's up to those who contribute there to come to a consensus. And I don't see anything unduly insulting in the diffs mentioned above. Calling someone a "battle-axe" is fairly commonplace and I wouldn't regard it as a BLP violation. Indeed many individuals would probably refer to themselves as such.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: I might refer to myself as any number of derogatory terms by way of reclamation, but that wouldn't make it okay for someone else to use those terms to describe me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  Amakuru, would you take the same position if a black person was called uppity or a Jewish person Shylocky? Just because you find the use of a pejorative to be common-place, that does not mean that it is civil to use. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 22:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. As many above, I've often disagreed with Andrew, and sometimes roll my eyes at his posts. But Wikipedia lives by having diverging views coming together. The nominator is grasping at straws with the "examples of disruption" they provide - none of them is really serious. Nor has anyone appointed the nominator as the thought police of ITN. I've noted instead that some contributors seem to take a fancy in piling vitriol on any comment Andrew makes. These various (less and less justified) ANIs against Andrew start looking much like a witch-hunt to me... ITN is criticised for not being a welcoming place - this ANI and the actions of some of the detractors of Andrew contribute to that impression. Khuft (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone else mentioned that Andrew's persistence at ITN may seem disruptive, but the discourse he generates is reflective of a broader problem - ITN has very few fixed rules. Andrew's !vote rationales don't violate any policies, even if some say there is an unofficial consensus that the factors he relies on "don't matter" (e.g. page views). We haven't codified any ITN policy which bars Andrew from using the rationales he does, nor has there has been any RFC. The particular usage of "invasion" was inappropriate, but WP:AGF applies and there aren't any other compelling examples of racism or xenophobia, etc, to back up Genevieve's allegations. In the future, rushing so quickly to ANI is unnecessary. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 19:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I suggested closing a couple days ago. I now suggest a close per WP:SNOW. Consensus for admin action is unlikely to develop, and there’s a section just below re:ITN etiquette, where those wishing further discussion can continue. As for here, it’s more heat than light. Jusdafax (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  If there are any doubts, do not terminate the process prematurely. Unlikely is not impossible and it is very well possible that moving discussion about ITN issues to the ITN talk page, a place that a majority of participants seem to feel has an insular and obstinate culture, would be much less effective at finding an actual path forward for the community to resolve the issues raised (whether they be Andrew's behaviour or the operating methods of ITN generally speaking). — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 01:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• One commenter says it's a quirky posting style and political views. Another characterizes it as maybe some WP:ENGVAR misunderstanding. An admin(!) says it's just mildly annoying or offensive to one's political sensibilities. Time and again I can almost convince myself that the Wikipedia community is cleaning up its act, that we are getting serious about systemic bias in 2026, that we are trying our hardest not to be an overwhelmingly white and male community that has an overwhelmingly white and male approach towards social issues. And then I see a discussion where the community can't bring itself to sanction an editor for gross racism and sexism, and it's like being plunged in an ice bath. We tolerate crap like this, and then we scratch our heads, bewildered (bewildered, I say!) as to why women and people of color are much less likely to want to spend time around us.
  To be clear, not every person who opposed action in this thread is a bigot. Maybe even Andrew Davidson didn't realize how hurtful his comments are. But an inclusive community – one that is not overwhelmingly white and male – does not struggle with questions like "is it fair to the migrants and women of our community to tolerate rhetoric that demeans migrants as an 'invasion' and a woman as a 'battle-axe'?". Such is the paradox of systemic bias, but that is why full-throated pushback in unison against overt racism and sexism where we find it is the bare minimum. If we can't get together on that, I am not optimistic about our chances of finding long-term solutions to the thornier problems anytime soon.
  I oppose taking no action here. If I were handling this as an individual admin, I would have tempblocked Andrew Davidson with a note that there would not be a second tempblock for pulling crap like this again. That doesn't often happen when multiple people are involved in the decision making, so I'm neutral on whether a warning, a topic ban, or an indef is the right answer. But "do nothing" is the wrong answer, unless we want Andrew Davidson and would-be report filers to learn that there are no consequences for bigotry (as long as it's not too crazy), and maybe even a boomerang. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well said. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 23:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  + 1000

  Enabling his behavior is one thing, actively calling for sanctions against those saying "enough with his bullshit" is another. I knew when I !voted that he wasn't getting INDEFfed-he has been enabled for far too long - but I'm disheartened by some of the responses to the ongoing disruption. We should be better. Star Mississippi 00:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  The question here is whether Andrew's conduct, judged on the evidence and relevant policy, warrants a sanction. Demographic assertions are not a substitute for engaging with that question. Genuine concern about systemic bias would tolerate editors reaching different conclusions about language, politics, and social questions. This post leverages ‘systemic bias’ not to identify the exclusion of competing perspectives but to demand conformity with a preferred political view. Quite an inversion. Dr Fell (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson's conduct is sanctionable because hateful comments are disruptive, regardless of whether hateful intent is present. Hateful comments are disruptive for the same reason personal attacks and incivility are disruptive: They corrode the collaborative, inclusive environment that is fundamentally necessary for the maintenance of the project. Hateful rhetoric – and community tolerance or endorsement of it – discourages women and people of color from being a part of our community, not to mention from giving their time and effort to the project for free. That furthering of systemic bias in turn compromises the quality and breadth of our mainspace coverage. Fully fixing systemic bias in our ranks isn't easy, I'll admit, but this particular call isn't hard. Overtly hateful rhetoric – even when not the most vitriolic or ill-intended – is harmful to the project and should be rejected out of hand, and the fact that we may be failing to meet even that very low bar is tough for me to stomach. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I find it equally tough to stomach your comments here. There is no hate in Andrew's comments. Look, my family and I are illegal immigrants (and illegal emigrants, in multiple countries, as we journeyed from where we came from to, eventually, the US). Later in life I volunteered to help other illegal immigrants. I am obviously not bigoted toward illegal immigrants nor do I hate them. Yet I use the word "invasion" to describe 60k people illegally entering a city of 85k over a matter of days. I also use the terms "illegal immigrant" or "illegal migrant", not the currently PC term "undocumented person," to describe myself and others who enter and leave countries in violation of those countries' laws, because I believe that migration can be legal or illegal, but people aren't "documented" or "undocumented." That doesn't make me a bigot or hateful. I don't even hold conservative views about immigration--for obvious reasons, my personal politics on the issue are so far to the left that I don't even believe in national borders, like they shouldn't exist, at all.

  And I am offended by your and others' suggestion that using "invasion" is bigoted or hateful. Who are you to tell me what language to use to describe myself? I don't tell you what language to use to describe your identity or others with similar identities. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to ask the community to sanction you or the others for it.

  What also offends me is that you're so quick to throw labels like hateful and bigoted because someone uses a term once. This screams of youth. It's extremely intolerant. It's "high horse," "gotcha" moralism: not actual morality. When you get older, you'll see firsthand how language evolves and changes--anyone in their 20s just hasn't been an adult long enough to experience this firsthand yet. What's PC in one decade becomes offensive a few decades later. The R-word, for example, which I'm glad is no longer part of everyday language as it used to be, was once considered the PC alternative to the terms that came before it (like "feeble-minded," which was its official predecessor in medicine, if you can believe it). Some words that you use today will fall out of favor, and I promise you that 50 years hence, someone less than half your age will at some point tell you you're a jerk for using a word that, for your whole life, was PC. It's part of the evolution of language, and people.

  Personally I'm not going to use the term "battle axe" to describe strong women. As this discussion has demonstrated, some women find it offensive, others don't. I think it's offensive, so I won't use it, and I'm entitled to my opinion. But I oppose sanctioning someone for using that term once. And that doesn't make me a bigot or hateful or an enabler or anything like that.

  And all that is without even getting into cross-cultural differences, like the canonical example, the c-word, which is taboo on one side of the pond but not the other.

  It's a big world, and a global project means you have to make some allowances for differences across cultures, generations, politics, and otherwise. We have to tolerate, to some extent, that people who are different than us may use terms we find offensive. Participating in Wikipedia means being respectful and not using certain terms even if those terms aren't taboo where you live, but it doesn't mean sanctioning someone for failing once or twice to conform to a US Gen Z progressive viewpoint on acceptable language. It's a balance, not a litmus test. But I don't think you hold the moral high ground on these PC language issues the way you seem to think you do. Levivich (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  (Regarding the invasion issue) Levivich I think the US divide might also an issue here in terms of the misunderstandings between editors. Considering the language that's been used here in Spain about migration and the way the discourse has been weaponized to encourage ethnic violence (see 2026 Northern Ireland riots) in Europe, the long history of pogroms and race riots within Spain, and the fact that invasion is a military term (which in modern Spanish remembrance might be best associated with Franco's use of Moroccan shock troops for the purpose of tactical war rape campaigns during the White Terror in mainland Spain), there is a significant language divide between a resident of a nation where military terminology is embedded into regular life (the US) and one that is purposefully demilitarized (Spain). Maybe in the US, where the government regularly launches or funds foreign invasions, that term is not as heavily charged, but here in Spain where a foreign invasion has not happened since the Napoleonic era and the political climate is such that the main opposition party is calling for a Second Reconquista to 'fight' the alleged "Great Replacement" of ethnic Spanish people through mass immigration, the term invasion is very heavily charged.

  The last thing we, as an encyclopedia, want to encourage is the use of sensationalist language in the headlines we present through ITN. And if a phrase contains racially-charged implications in the context in which it is used, then it is in fact good for it to be called out. Just because other editors stepped in and addressed that issue does not mean that Andrew's use of the word cannot be criticized. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 14:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  But 60,000 people entering a city all at once... it is an invasion, in the military sense. It's an unarmed invasion, but it's still an invasion. A sudden overwhelming influx of people without warning or invitation... that is just what the word in English is for that. If 60,000 kittens entered your house, that's an invasion of kittens. If 60,000 bunnies entered your garden, that's an invasion of bunnies. That's just what the word means. When UK pop music became incredibly popular and UK bands started dominating US music charts, that was called the "British invasion." Even if there are negative connotations in Spain, even if Trump misused the word to describe illegal immigration in the U.S., it doesn't make the word forbidden. I don't have to adjust my language to meet Spanish sensibilities anymore than Spaniards need to adjust their language to meet mine.

  And come on, let's not kid each other: we're not talking about "Andrew's use of the word cannot be criticized," we're talking about sanctioning Andrew for using a word. I criticize Andrew's use of "battle axe" and asked him not to do it. But that's not the same thing as voting for sanction. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  sanctioning Andrew for using a word is an oversimplification. Also, it is not an invasion in the military sense. For that to be the case, it would (per the definition of military) have to be related to armed forces. Which, at this point and at the time that Andrew proposed the headline, is not a cut-and-dry connection to make. What they were was 60,000 illegal migrants, over 50,000 of which have already been voluntarily returned to Moroccan soil. Even the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is a very clear case of a military invasion, is displayed in the ITN section using the current neutral title of "Russo-Ukrainian war". The wiki article, to my knowledge, has never used the word invasion in the title, either. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  In addition, all of this word mincing over the definition is pointless when it is, verifiably, something that originates in far right rhetoric. All of the semantics does nothing but hide the otherwise extremely clear and extremely partisan politics behind the language used. The actual word could mean literally anything and that wouldn't change the clear intent behind its use here. Snosibsnob (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, of course, that ITN shouldn't use the word "invasion" in the blurb. But just because somebody proposed it doesn't mean that person is racist, bigoted, etc., or should be sanctioned or even warned. This is what I mean when I say we need to tolerate people from different backgrounds, cultures, ages, etc. etc. Yeah, somebody is gonna suggest a sub-optimal way of describing something, and consensus will come back and say "no," and that's all normal and OK. It's not OK to jump straight to "see you at ANI." Levivich (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  BTW, it's the same as any group of 60,000 people can be called an "army," even if they're not an actual army. Just because it's a right-wing talking point doesn't mean it's always a right-wing talking point. One thing I f'ing hate is that the right-wing will choose some label, and then the left-wing will say every use of that label is now a right-wing talking point, and now the right-wing gets to decide what I can and cannot say. An army of people invaded Ceuta. That's not how Wikipedia should describe it, but it's not bigoted or racist to describe it that way, even if the right-wing uses "army" and "invasion" and words like that to describe undocumented migrants crossing borders. They don't get to claim language like that, and the rest of us shouldn't assist them in the process. Levivich (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Language simply does not exist in a vacuum. Words take on meaning and intent that we do not want them to regularly. This does not just apply to the right, progressive spaces change the implication of words all the time as well. We don't live in a bubble where if we "just explain ourselves enough" we can use whatever words we like and ignore wider social context to what we say. I don't really care to litigate if anybody in particular is racist or not because that doesn't really accomplish anything, but words will always exist in a larger rhetorical context and will take on specific meaning and intent. Snosibsnob (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's an unarmed invasion, but it's still an invasion.

  Apparently, it should be called a "strategic mass demonstration" then. ~2026-42826-46 (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I have to say I think this is an extreme reach to add meaning to the word. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Likely it's purely etymological, with numerous backgrounds of users adding confusion. Nevertheless "military" meaning of invasion is one of the major ones, but not the major one.

  Britannica

  1: the act of invading something: such as
  a: the act of entering a place in an attempt to take control of it
  [count]
  The enemy launched/mounted an invasion.
  the invasion of Poland
  [noncount]
  The people live under a constant threat of invasion.
  b:the act of entering a place in large numbers especially in a way that is harmful or unwanted
  [count]
  The town is gearing up for the annual tourist invasion.
  an invasion of/by insects

  Merriam-Webster

  1: an act of invading
  especially: incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
  2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

  Wictionary

  1. A military action consisting of a large armed force of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.
  2. The entry without consent of an individual or group into an area where they are not wanted.
  Synonym:descent
  an invasion of mobile phones
  an invasion of bees
  an invasion of foreign tourists

  It clearly show that "military" meaning is not cover all possible invading by people, unless it directly stated (and that "European" definition is less "military" than "American"). Neither it is that loaded on its own (beside overall negative meaning present). Take "home invasion". It is not invasion, if it's done by a migrant, but something else instead (because invasion shouldn't be used for migrants)? Not everything migrants doing is invasion, but its fallacy to go from it to state that migrants couldn't do invasion, merely due to them being migrants. ~2026-42826-46 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  The last thing we, as an encyclopedia, want to encourage is the use of sensationalist language in the headlines we present through ITN. I just want to clarify one thing since I've seen a few different editors in this thread seemingly confuse this. At no point did Andrew (or anyone else) suggest the word "invasion" should appear in a blurb - the wording that could actually appear in the ITN box on the main page. His original proposed blurb (which you can see there even now; it wasn't changed, although it wasn't the one ultimately selected to be posted for this event) was this: "Thousands of migrants overwhelm the Spanish border with Morocco at Ceuta." Where he used the word "invasion" prior to it being changed by another editor was the section heading for the nomination; section headings are there purely to separate nominations from one another on the ITN/C project page. ~2026-42991-62 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. That changes my issue with the wording significantly, but his use of the word is nonetheless something I personally find objectionable. Regardless, I admit my mistake in thinking that was the proposed headline. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 20:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The evidence presented simply does not establish any conduct warranting even a slap on the wrist. Much of this appears to be disagreement with Andrew's arguments, style, and personal views dressed up as a conduct case. Editors are allowed to be eccentric, contrarian, doggedly persistent, and even wrong. ITN itself is structurally broken and has repeatedly shown itself incapable of meaningful self-directed reform. Sanctioning one of its most active editors, particularly one willing to challenge its broken status quo, does not advance the project. Dr Fell (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose ITN has been a POV-pushing sewer for a long time. This smacks of butthurt because someone dares to have a different opinion. Have you looked at the numbers for administrator elections versus RfA? WP:OWN warriors achieving the "right" outcome through running people off with constant harassment is never going to be a net positive, no matter how much satisfaction you may get out of it personally. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  running people off with constant harassment is never going to be a net positive,

  You're well within your right to oppose- although calling people butthurt is beneath you, @RadioKAOS but that? That's the exact description of what Andrew has done over the years. He's not unblockable, but apparently currently untouchable. Star Mississippi 03:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see any evidence of constant harassment by Andrew in this thread. That is a serious allegation that should be backed by diffs. I see, instead, that he once called the Spain/Morocco thing an invasion, once called a female politician a battle axe, regularly argued that page views count towards significance, and is inconsistent in how he treats images in noms. Did I miss something? Because if not, I think you should strike the allegation of constant harassment. Levivich (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Warn - using the term "invasion" in this context and referring to a woman as a "battle-axe" aren't conducive to creating a positive and inclusive environment for encyclopedia editing. The least we should do is make it clear that the user in question shouldn't be so cavalier with their language in the future. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Question: Andrew, in context, I can't make out whether you are using battle-axe as a pejorative or a term of endearment. Can you elaborate? I would think it was unambiguously critical if not for the additional descriptor of "feisty". Whonting (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  It may help to see the comment in context. This was in a thread which was a tangent to the recent nomination discussion for Lindsey Graham. The general issue was a perennial ITN discussion point − whether Graham's death should be blurbed or not.

  Comment Can you name any non-US non-head of government non-head of state politicians who you would support for a blurb in the event of their death that was a result of natural causes? Chrisclear (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Simple: Chrystia Freeland, Ed Miliband, Gerry Adams, Melenchon, Le Pen, Weidel, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Count Binface Ben Gvir, Preston Manning, Pauline Hanson, etc. to name a few. — Knightoftheswords 05:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Speaking as an Australian, blurbing Hanson's death would be very strange indeed. Being a leader of a minor populist party does not warrant a blurb, and neither does being a notable US senator. Loytra^✨ 06:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Speaking as someone on the other side of the world, I'm not sure who the current Australian PM is but I've heard of Pauline Hanson. My impression is that she is a feisty, larger-than-life battle-axe like Ann Widdecombe and so is of special interest. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  So, my point was to outline the distinctive characteristics which made Hanson stand out and so make her of special interest. Note that my observation did not attract any response and so this little tangent stopped there.
  I made some other observations in the discussion about Graham, pointing out that his article had quality issues which others had missed; that the topic was formally tagged as controversial; that the article was getting remarkably high traffic and that it was also spiking in the Russian language. These observations didn't attract much response either; just an approving comment from Masem.
  So, as the battle-axe comment didn't generate any drama at the time, why has it been highlighted now? My impression is that the OP has been going through all my ITN postings systematically, looking for anything that might put me in a bad light when presented in isolation. This seems to be a classic case of cherry picking.
  Andrew🐉(talk) 06:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm less interested in whether it did attract attention than whether it should have attracted attention. Am I reading your comment correctly that it was a negative descriptor? Whonting (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  The comment was intended to be descriptive, not derogatory. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  As an example of where the B word is used in an affectionate way, and perhaps indicating some cultural differences between different editors, see this piece, "Whatever happened to the Great British Battleaxe?" in The Guardian by Lucy Mangan. I imagine Ms. Hanson, who I hope never gains any levers of power in QLD or elsewhere in the Commonwealth, would regard it as a badge of honour, unfortunately. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I had a quick browse for current usage and found this recent article by Mary Kenny, 'I knew Ann Widdecombe somewhat – I interviewed her a couple of times and shared a book gig with her in Belfast – and she wouldn’t have objected to my describing her as a “battleaxe”.' Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  We need to boycott Mary Kenny! Despite being the founder of the Irish Women's Liberation Movement and a leading protestor on the Contraceptive Train, she called Widdecombe a battleaxe, which – as we now know – is "gross ... sexism" and "bigotry"! aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support warning I think several people have expressed well why but Hatman31 is particularly to-the-point: using the term "invasion" in this context and referring to a woman as a "battle-axe" aren't conducive to creating a positive and inclusive environment for encyclopedia editing. The least we should do is make it clear that the user in question shouldn't be so cavalier with their language in the future. --JBL (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose anything more than a warning for what someone above claimed was "appallingly distasteful racism and sexism" (I don't see it, but perhaps this is a c-word in Anglosphere situation?). Some of the diffs of irrelevant commentary brought up in the OP and the thread do seem irritating, but others are nothingburgers (oh no, he thinks France and Spain are politically similar!) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. With my deepest apologies to the OP - these, for the most part, don't seem particularly sanction-worthy. To give some examples:

• Here he falsely claims that a sporting event 'needs' a picture in order to be posted - I mean, we can certainly say that the article doesn't need a picture to be posted, because it isn't required by guidelines. But it is not disruptive to say that he feels an article needs a picture. We shouldn't nitpick his exact wording, nor topic ban people for having different preferences.
• Here, here, here, here, and in many other places, he again repeats his misleading arguments about numbers of page views, which he has been repeatedly asked not to use at ITN, as the existing viewership of a page is not a good guide to whether it should be posted. - From past experience, I know he feels strongly about page views. It may be annoying that people have asked him multiple times to not use pageviews as a metric for ITN suitability, but (1) is this against ITN rules and (2) can it be shown that this is severely interrupting discussions?
• Here he shows his long-held bias against national elections in small nations, a topic which is an agreed part of ITN/R. - As above, we shouldn't topic ban people for having different preferences.
• Here, in response to a very focussed proposal about how elections are reported at ITN, he introduces a highly disruptive alternative proposal that was not part of the drafting consultation. - I'm very sorry, but this does not seem to be a disruptive behavior, but a personal grievance against the way Andrew Davidson does things.

Only a few diffs out of the above are possibly worthy of sanction, e.g. the "battle-axe" comment, and arguably the Spain-France comment. So maybe a warning may be warranted, but a full-on topic ban, IMO, is not justified given the comments above. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Revisiting at the last election issue, note that this is misrepresented as a problem. If you look at the RfC, which is still running, you will see that the RfC's initiator actually thanked me for pointing out a procedural issue, adjusted the RfC's wording in response and made no complaint about my other observations.

Thank you for pointing out the flaw in the RFC question (the first person after 24 days of workshopping...). I have reworked it to hopefully resolve the concern. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify your last sentence, do you mean Spain-Morocco, where AD used a word some have found provocative? The Spain-France comment was about posting wildfires in bordering countries on the same line. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Unknown Temptation, yes, that is what I meant, my apologies. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I may approve or disapprove of Andrew's opinions, but he has full right to clearly express them. I fail to see an urgent problem with the evidence presented here that needs to be addressed immediately, and I think that the description of some edits by the reporter are even more problematic (for instance, there's absolutely nothing wrong with he nominates a Wikipedia user ban as an ITN story. and he introduces a picture of mythological Irish fish into a discussion of the collapse of government in Gaza so that they're used as evidence for disruptive editing). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any action beyond a warning, as an uninvolved user, who I personally believe would disagree with the majority of Andrew's arguments at ITN, but then again I don't participate at ITN at all, and it seems much more flexible than other boards. Even if it was rigid, all the points raised as to what he wants to see included or not are just votes in discussion, surely just being on the minority end of arguments is not near enough reason to sanction.

The "invasion" comment is charged with political bias and I agree is inappropriate to use in the front page. The "battle-axe" within context was absolutely used in a positive light. Every other argument, such as about page views or images are minor preferences and come up again and again, but if the folk at ITN want there to be specific policy about it then the best course is an RFC or issue will keep popping up in each individual case.

No action is needed, not even towards OP either. BrandNewSaint (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

For all of the people who mentioned broader issues around ITN

I've opened a section on the ITN talk page to discuss potentially fixing some of these issues. Participants here are invited to discuss. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 23:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Such discussions about fixing ITN are a perennial feature but usually fizzle out without any action or change. A recent article in the Signpost observes that this is a general problem: "We need to innovate with Wikimedia decision-making".

Structural change in an organisation usually requires strong leadership. At ITN, this should come from the admins who get the last word in deciding what gets posted and how. But the admins active at ITN are mostly a limited pool which doesn't seem to have been refreshed for at least 10 years − see admin activity statistics.

So, as admin action is being called for here at ANI, I suggest that any passing admins consider whether they should take a turn at administering ITN. One common complaint at ITN is that nominations are not given enough attention and so there seems to be a backlog which could use more patrollers. And having more admins around might also help in making the discussions more orderly and less acrimonious.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Changing ITN is much like changing the Main Page; people generally agree it should be changed, but the consensus breaks down when deciding what to change it to. I have come to believe that almost anything should be allowed to be posted(a simplification of my position) but some want it gone completely or something else in between. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I can safely say that, as somebody who is only vaguely involved with WP:ITN that after seeing the community's response to blatant trolling, incivil comments, and WP:IDHT on display in this very thread is to a)try and boomerang the person reporting and b)say that editors who participate at ITN deserve it because they don't like how ITN work... I have very little interest in ever reporting blatant violations of our pillars or policies which I see at ITN, because it's clear the community does not want to police any toxic behaviour. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

It won't be fixed. Too many aggressive editors. As many mentioned above, the overall environment of ITN is quite hostile. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Kiwipete mass AWB misuse/disruption

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

Kiwipete at the time of writing this report has made 1500+ disruptive edits using WP:AWB. Of his previous 1500+ AWB edits, they are all either just removing one single blank line from the page or removing blank lines and legitimate article content, such as , , , and . WP:AWBRULES explicitly states that editors are prohibited from making insignificant or inconsequential edits and that editors are responsible for every edit they make using AWB. I've attempted to explain this to Kiwipete on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to be getting the issue and it's such an egregious rule violation that it's worth posting here anyway. At minimum some sort of mass reversion is needed to reinstate all the removals of invisible comments and such from infoboxes. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 03:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll just highlight myself the discussion that Electricmemory started on my talk page, and where I have explained what I am doing. I would even add that there are probably way more than the 1500+ edits Electricmemory claims I have done like this. I originally proposed this edit here, so I'm wondering why it's only come to Electricmemory's notice now? Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You are still not getting the point. You should not have made these edits. You continue to claim that you are removing unsourced content when in fact you are not doing that at all, and are only making WP:COSMETIC edits. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 04:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you looked at the diffs of your recent edits, Kiwipete? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 04:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

When I look at the edits it seems to be just blank lines are being removed and not "town is x distance from...". E.g here. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I saw these too. And they are with AWB. Jako96 (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Salmon Of Ignorance That’s exactly the problem. Kiwipete has essentially made 1500~ edits just removing a single blank line from articles. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

They should address this issue. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that the edits are clearly cosmetic so against the AWB rules. But IMO there's no need for a block or something at this time, unless they continue. Although this was worth for reporting to ANI even in this point. Jako96 (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Argh. A bored Wikipedian with an automated tool. In most of these situations, there is no clearer case of "when all you have is hammer". These people start inventing random problems that need to be fixed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

keeping this open for lack of response… Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 05:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Kiwipete has not resumed these incorrect AWB edits since 31 July, when they commented here, so the message may have got through. Kiwipete, if you resume incorrect edits and misleading edit summaries using AWB then per WP:AWBRULES any admin can revoke your AWB access at any time, without further warning: "Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled." Fences&Windows 14:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries, and yes, as you note, I haven't made any similar edits since Electricmemory's fairly grevious complaint ;) Kiwipete (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Youravreageavaitor and article creation

Youravreageavaitor (talk · contribs) is an enthusiastic, but I feel misguided editor. They have created multiple mostly low-quality articles, a number of which have either being deleted or moved to draft space. I don't believe anyone has addressed this with them, so recently I suggested on their talk page that they might consider using the Articles for Creation approach instead of creating articles directly into article space (diff #1). I received no reply and they subsequently created another article. So I added to my previous note (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Youravreageavaitor&diff=prev&oldid=1366474404 diff #2]) hoping that I would get a response. I didn't and they have just created another article.

I don't want to stifle enthusiasm, but this editor creates work for other people. I strongly feel they should be encouraged by a suitable mentor, or compelled by an admin, to stop creating articles directly and to create drafts instead. This would give them the opportunity to receive feedback on their proposed new articles from experienced editors and stop the unnecessary cleanup work of dealing with poor quality articles.

I have looked at other forums, including dispute resolution, but I can't think of any other place to bring this. If there is a better place then let's close it and move the discussion there. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Which articles have they created that you find issue with? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 14:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Some articles as you said can be seen on their talk page. I have a feelings that the users is in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. TBB (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Thebaldball I think you're right about that. Nine article edits since being notified of this ANI thread and no response on their talk page or here. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Could be some form of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU/dark mode fuckery or otherwise. Not the first time that has happened. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 22:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Look at their talk page history and they replied multiple times to posts, including within the past two weeks]. So this is deliberately ignoring. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah you appear to be right. I don't think there's enough here to justify any sort of block though, low-quality articles usually don't count as a policy violation. However it would be in everyone's best interests for them to reply to this discussion Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 07:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I would say every article that myself and other editors have moved to draft. Look on their talk page and you'll see how many articles that has happened to. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

 Resolved, they are now using AfC. Fence127 (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

They still need to acknowledge these issues directly. Communication is required. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 20:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Great! Fence127 (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a new draft article created by them. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I’ve looked at their contributions and can’t see a single AfC since this was opened… so where exactly is this AfC usage? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Check their talk page. Fence127 (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly what we are talking about - a page that they created in article space in May this year, which was moved to draft space a day later by @Aviationwikiflight, and has eventually, after contributions by multiple editors, been accepted as an article. So you saying it's resolved is wrong. This is not a newly-created draft since the (one way) discussions with this editor began. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Fence127 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This looks similar to this ANI discussion . (Beware, it's quite long.) Fence127(talk) 09:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

They have just flatly refused to join this discussion (dff). I feel a block is in order from article space until they do join in. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Usually I don't think it will get draftified and I mostly add some level of information as i've seen with the creator of the article Guine Bissau Airlines Youravreageavaitor (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Your articles nearly always get moved to draft or deleted. Will you agree to use the AfC draft process for all new articles going forward? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If the articles with one sentence that have been here since 2011 get deleted then yes Youravreageavaitor (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't play games here, this is a serious forum. You are very welcome to nominate any article for speedy deletion WP:SPEEDY, propose deletion WP:PROD or nominate it for a deletion discussion WP:AFD (although I would encourage you use the latter until you have more experience with the process). However the fact that other stuff exists is not the issue at hand here, so I repeat the question: Will you commit to using the AfC process WP:AfC to draft new articles and refrain from creating articles directly? 10mmsocket (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't know how to create article started with draft... please use WP:AW next time. TBB (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

ok Youravreageavaitor (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Deamonpen — sourcing of contentious claims about living people

I am asking to look at a number of edits by Deamonpen in living persons biographies where the claims about living people appear to go beyond or at least not to be supported by the corresponding cited sources. And such edits are surronded around very specific set of articles.

Claims that appear unsupported by the cited source

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1305704594 – in a Peter Thiel article, it’s stated that Thiel moved to the US "at the age of one", but the cited Guardian article says nothing about one year age, it says: "moved to the US when he was 10". While "1971" refers to the birth of Elon Musk.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1323214212 – on Kevin Harrington, he is called an "office manager at Thiel Capital"; the cited Gizmodo article names a different person (look at this citation: But according to Marlena Hilderly, the office manager at Thiel Capital, Harrington will no longer..)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1316200330 – on Marc Andreessen, a dinner is described as "organized by Andreessen"; the New Yorker source states clearly as organized by eHarmony investor.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1317787495 – on Peter Thiel, the "28" app is said to require the "last day" of a cycle; the added bizjournal source says the first day https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2022/10/femtech-startup-28-opens-miami-beach-headquarters.html?page=all (direct citation: To get started, 28 users must input the first day of their last period)

Claims that overstate the source

• Special:Diff/1308851059 – on Jeffrey Epstein, it was written that Ehud Barak "visited Epstein's private island together with his wife while arranging to leave his security team behind in January 2014". The island trip and such details as the date and the security preparatins are all cited in the Straight Arrow News. The wife is not. That report says directly: "The emails do not say whether security officers or other guests attended with Barak." The other source cited, Times of Israel media, mentions Barak's wife however on a Palm Beach–Tampa flight and at Epstein's "estates in Florida and New York" — no word about the. The source states that the emails don't reveal who traveled with Barak. Deamonpen's edit names his wife — placing a living person on Epstein's island by converting the word "us" in an email to "plus wife".

WP:SYNTH Synthesis of unrelated sources

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1321976589 – "Rivendell" German and Korean investments joined via a name coincidence. The article says: "Rivendell entities are known to participate in his German or Korean investments." The German part is well sourced. MarketScreener source titled "Rivendell Investment and an unknown buyer signed a contract to acquire 44.32% stake in Thinkfree NV from Hancom Inc." The only thing that connects it to him is the word "Rivendell" itself — a J.R.R. Tolkien name he uses for his holding entities, and one a Korean firm also used it. Looks like AI overlap.

• Special:Diff/1323200324 – Thiel Capital's investment list describes "Kodex" as one company that both "does data request" for law enforcement and "advertises itself as 'leading food safety and industrial X-ray inspection systems'", manufacturing weapons detectors and aircraft maintenance equipment. But, it's cleary that these are two separate companies with the same or almost the same name. The seed round naming Thiel Capital is on kodexglobal.com, a law-enforcement data-request platform. From the other side, the X-ray systems, the DoD contracts and the federal award records belong to KODEX, INC. (kodexray.com), which no ref connects to Thiel Capital. This part is weird.

A topic ban from BLPs would be preventive rather than punitive in this case. Errors of this kind carry real citations and look correct on the page, so they are only found by opening every source and reading it and comparing against every sentence — which literally no editor can do realistically at this volume and should not do. Norlk (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I think a topic ban from BLP makes the most sense--unless they are also doing contentious unsourced edits like this on other non-BLP pages which is a different thing entirely. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear people,

Thanks User:Norlk for having paying attention to so many of my edits. I would argue that you have misread the majority of my edits that you have mentioned, and regarding the parts where I actually made mistakes, these mistakes were minor and not created deliberately on my part. I think maybe you should help me fix such mistakes (including those that you might have not mentioned yet? I often make big edits that tie many sources together and a consequence of this style is that at time I miss/drop a ref or place it at the wrong place). I don't understand how these minor mistakes might constitute a basis for topic ban though. Please help correcting me if there are Wikipedia rules that say so.

• Peter Thiel (born 1967) moved to the US the first time in his life (Ohio/Cleveland) when he was one year old. But later he moved to Africa, then he and family moved backed to the US (specifically, Foster City) in 1977 (these details, inlcluding dates, Thiel's age when each move happened, cities etc are also supported by sources like this, this or this. That sentence has been edited by many people many times.

Before me: "Born in Germany and raised in Swakopmund in South West Africa, Thiel moved to the United States at the age of 10." (no ref)

My edit: "Born in Germany, Thiel followed his parents to the US at the age of one, and then moved to South Africa in 1971, before moving back to the US in 1977." (Ref used: Guardian: McGreal 2025, which I used for the part that said he moved back to the US)

I don't add a ref for the one year old part because the main text already explains the circumstance in details in the early life section (this part is still in the current article) with ref from New Yorker: The family moved to Cleveland in 1968, but later relocated to what was then South West Africa, where Thiel’s father, a chemical engineer, oversaw the development of a uranium mine near Swakopmund.

• Marc Andreessen meeting Laura Arrillaga. Well, New Yorker does not state that the dinner was organized by eHarmony: "When the couple met, in 2005, at a New Year’s Eve dinner thrown by the leading investor in eHarmony, they talked for six and a half hours." Because the article talks only about one leading investor (of the Silicon Valley), I assumed that referred to Marc Andreessen (also the way it is written as "the leading investor". And I didn't know that eHarmony was a dating app but thought it was some big place or mode of organization of a meeting or whatever, so my reasoning was not "investor in/of the dating app eHarmony". I don't use dating apps and am living in Asia where people use other apps. But apparently the organizer was not even some distant eHarmony investor, but the eHarmony CEO per WSJ) .
• Ehud Barak's wife: The source I used to determine that Barak's wife definitely went with Barak was Times of Israel, which is aso cited by the same edit of mine that you mentioned: According to the WSJ’s Wednesday report on the calendar’s contents, Barak visited Epstein about 30 times between 2013 and 2017 at his estates in Florida and New York, including a time in 2014 when the former Israeli premier flew with Epstein on his private aircraft from Palm Beach to Tampa, after which Epstein went on to New York. Barak said his wife and an Israeli security guard were also on that flight. He said he flew with Epstein on his private plans on one other occasion, also with his wife and guards. Also, the person named Nili in the letter cited by the Straight Arrows News source is Barak's wife. I did not base the statement on a simple "us". Also fom CBC, Barak has acknowledged visiting Epstein numerous times, flying on his private plane and staying at his New York apartment when he was out of public office. Barak said he and his wife and some security guards paid a three-hour visit to Epstein's home in the U.S. Virgin Islands, but saw only Epstein and some maintenance workers there.

• Rivendell Investments: No, in both US and Korean contexts it is well known that Rivendell Investments is a brand associated with Peter Thiel. In Korean context it is frequently mentioned together with Thiel's Korea-based Crescendo Equity Partners (Korean media like Newstop frequently directly states that Crescendo is led and established by Peter Thiel): Peter Thiel is the beneficial owner of Rivendell Investments 2017-9 LLC and has sole voting and investment power over the securities held by Rivendell Investments 2017-9 LLC. (SEC filing); This is also related to business dealing with the company Hancom (한컴 or 한글과컴퓨터) that you cited above: 페이팔 창업자 피터 틸(Peter Thiel)이 출자한 사모펀드가 한글과컴퓨터그룹에 두 번째 투자를 단행했다. 이 자금은 한컴그룹의 블록체인 기반 디지털금융 플랫폼과 여러 계열사간의 연합 전략을 펼칠 산업용 드론 등 주요 신사업에 투입될 전망이다. 한컴그룹 지주사인 한컴위드는 글로벌 사모펀드 '크레센도에쿼티파트너스'로부터 130억원 규모의 투자를 유치했다고 4일 밝혔다. 이 투자는 크레센도의 투자목적회사인 가제트홀딩스유한회사와 리벤델인베스트먼트(Rivendell Investments 2018-2 LLC)를 통해 진행된다. (Korean Ajunew. Here it is state that Rivendell Investments 2018-2 LLC is an investment purpose company of Crescendo)

Here, Rivendell Investments 2018-2 LLC is again tied to Dong-Ah Geological Engineering], which by the way is fully owned by Crescendo Equity Partners.

Also, for the connection between Hancom, Thinkfree NV, iText (iText formed a joint venture with Hancom to create Thinkfree), Rivendell, Crescendo, Titan (the latter three are all backed by Peter Thiel), Thiel Capital, Matt Danzeisen, see the blog of the iText founder Bruno Lowagie: 1; 2

• Kevin Harrington (national security advisor): Well, now that I think about it, in this sentence "office manager" should refer to Marlena Hilderly rather than Kevin Harrington: "But according to Marlena Hilderly, the office manager at Thiel Capital, Harrington will no longer be working at that firm, due to his new role. We’ve asked Thiel’s representatives about this, and we’ll update this post if we get a response. (Thiel Capital and Thiel Macro appear to be intertwined; they share an address, and a recent Wall Street Journal story referred to Harrington as an employee of Thiel Capital.)". (Gizmodo Probably I was confused by the whole ranges of titles associated with Harrington at Clarium (Thiel Capital's predecessor), Thiel Capital, Thiel Macro (jointed at the hips with TC in some way as mentioned by Gizmodo), but I think that I did not do anything defaming to Mr. Harrington or Thiel Capital, for which Mr.Harrington did serve as a key executive. Thiel went public with his support for Trump in May at the urging of Kevin Harrington, a longtime principal at Thiel Capital with whom he has — as another Thiel employee described it — a sort of “mind meld.” (Per Politico; Mark Woolway, the Vice President of Corporate Development at health benefits broker Zenefits, and Kevin Harrington, a managing director at Thiel Capital, will join so-called “landing teams” charged with identifying policy priorities and hiring key people into executive-branch departments. (WSJ)
• Kodex Inc and Kodex Global -- well, the connection is shown in their old Terms of use on their site: "Notices and Contact. All legal notices given by you or required under this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to: Kodex, Inc., P.O. Box 270769, 444 E 3rd Street, Boston, MA 02127, USA. You may also contact us with general inquiries at Email: info@Kodexglobal.com."

Best regards----Deamonpen (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Evie/28/Hugoboom: Well that edit was the result of a little quick cross examination between me and another user, which also continues on the page of the Evie Magazine. Sources have been added and removed a lot. Whether you must insert the first day of your last period or the last day of your previous period to use the pediod tracking app 28 are stated variously/confusingly in various sources: Once you sign up, enter your cycle information for the “last day of your first period” and “averege cycle duration” or update them in app under Profile > My Cycle anytime. (Womenlovetech); All 28 users need to do to get content configured to their cycle is to input the first day of their last period.Techcrunch)

Also when I check back, I find out that it is true I initially made the edit that said "the last day of their period", but then I quickly changed the line to "the first day of their last period" according to the information of the cited articles (cited by me or the original user who first put the info about the app 28 in the article). As I understand, the latter is the version that you insist on? I don't know how this constitutes a major problem at all.

I think in the case of this minor detail, we should add these sources, as in the case of some other minor details mentioned above, instead of banning me. Do you people agree? Deamonpen (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I have added sources for these article to clarify some matters or correct minor details mentioned above, as you might see in my contributions page, if you people want more, please tell me or you might do so on your own. Deamonpen (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

You have been engaging in what is called on WIkipedia original research. Please read the information at that link. Putting two things together to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by the source is synthesis and is not allowed. I assumed that referred to Marc Andreessen (also the way it is written as "the leading investor". is a great example of synthesis. Just because your conclusions may be correct doesn't mean you can use them in an article, particularly in a BLP where we have less tolerance for errors. You have to agree to stop doing this.

The WP:SYNTH section gives some great examples as to why putting things together like that can lead to false conclusions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear User:rsjaffe, thank you for the guidance. The core of my argument was that because the previous sentences talked about Andreessen, so I thought "the leading investor" in the next sentence should be Andreessen, same with "if the previous sentences talk about Donald Trump, and the next sentence talk about the (bad, great, populist, confused, whatever) president, then it should not be Ronald Reagan." English is not my native and for all the part of life I spent at school, I was taught that if it was phrased as "the", it meant the subject had been mentioned in the previous sentence. In other words, to me the situation was: the leading investor = he. Not that I extracted information and made my guess around the phrase itself. If this is synth, the next time I will just extract the phrase out and put it in parentheses. Note that the two people calling for my ban above are similarly confused by the statements about living people and miss information even more than me, although they are at the position of the reviewer. I must admit I am a bit perplexed by Wikipedia's standards on SYNTH, because in my previous incident, when another accused me of 3RR and I accused them of SYNTH (which was extended for 2 weeks and happened in 2 boards), in the end no admin came out and told me whether that was SYNTH or not. See Continuation of conversation on Evie Magazinw Deamonpen (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The important point is that if the source doesn't say something, you don't say something in the article. Sources can have ambiguous sentences (like what you are mentioning above), and we can't "fix them up" by deducing their meaning. If there was an another sentence in the same source saying Andreessen was the leading investor, then, yes, the source has made the connection between the two. (Note that having to use a second source to identify Andreesen as the leading investor would also be synth: the policy is explicit on that).

It's tempting to fix up things when it's obvious to you what the connection is, but we don't make connections unless the source has. Again, particularly in BLPs, where we particularly want to have clear evidence for what we're saying.

It's much better to use the same terminology as used in the source rather than trying to clarify it by deducing its meaning (e.g., leading investor is much safer to say than Andreesen).

I can't comment on the previous incident without links to it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean I was imagining that you thought I deduced that "because Andreessen is known as one of the two or three (when Paul Graham was still active) leading investors of the Silicon Valley, if this phrase says "the leading investor", then that should be Andreessen". The situation was I saw a chain of sentence that referred to "Andreessen [...] The man [...] Andreessen [...]. He and Laura [...] He [...]. The couple [....]. He [...] The leading investor [...] (and certainly, the sentences immediately above and below this part talked about a16z, his great investments, his method of investing....). My mistake was that I didn't tie "the leading investor" to eHarmony because I did not even know that eHarmony was a company or a target of investment, but thought it was a place or an online mode of dating or whhatever (it would be like "Laura met the investor in New York").

I pasted the link for the previous incident above. Here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive501#Continuation_of_conversation Deamonpen (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, that's not quite right. The advice you received is an oversimplification. The word "the" can introduce terms as well. The referrent can often have been mentioned before (and it's certainly a good rule of thumb for deciding whether to use "the" or "a" for learners), but it's by no means a requirement. The number of novels with "the" as the first word is substantial. (The observant reader will have seen what I did there.) Morwen (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I know "the" can be used in be used in an introductory way. But novels and documents with high rhetorical tone are another thing. This is just a simple description of how Marc Andreessen met his wife Laura. Anyway the crux is the eHarmony pat, which is my point of ignorance. Deamonpen (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Also note I only mentioned one example to make it clear. Some of the other issues above also show clear synth. Where does a source say Ehud Barak "visited Epstein's private island together with his wife while arranging to leave his security team behind in January 2014". I looked at the sources provided. None support this statement, which is a serious BLP violation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it was some confusion at the time when we edited back and forth. In my memory when I used this part, I did not write that Nili Barak/Barak's wife was with him when he travelled to the island. But later in another revision when I had another article when it was clearly stated that Barak's wife was with him (probably the CBC article above), I changed the information. It turned out that I wrote on the Barak's page that Barak's wife was NOT travelling to the island, but later in the same day I wrote on Epstein page that she was travelling to the island while pasting the same articles as refs. Basically at this time I read different reports that said she either did travel or did not travel, or there was no confirmation. Note that the whole long sections on Barak, Epstein, Vekselberg, Thiel etc with many refs was written by me in both articles and corrected repeatedly by many people. This happened months ago so now when you guys bring this up, it is not easy for me to really process the information. It was possible that I assumed wrongly that the article talking about Barak's wife visiting the island had already existed in the refs previously posted, but I believed I did read that Barak said Nili Barak was with him when they travelled to the island. Anyway, my mistake for the lack of the refs.Deamonpen (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I looked at that edit: you placed that whole statement in there as a single piece in that edit, so confusion seems a poor explanation since it's all your own words. Also, above in this thread you use a reference to justify this edit. The most the reference says is "Barak said he and his wife and some security guards paid a three-hour visit to Epstein's home in the U.S. Virgin Islands, but saw only Epstein and some maintenance workers there." You edit gives a specific month and year, which I do not see, and also says Barak intentionally left his security guards behind: that second part implies intention to hide something, and completely contradicts the reference you yourself used. Another reference, in the edit you did make, has an email where Barak talks about trying to go without security guards: nothing as to whether that was successful or not. In that reference, nothing links his wife to that trip. The reference explicitly states: "The emails do not say whether security officers or other guests attended with Barak." Let me say it again: this synthesis is unacceptable and you must take care when editing, particularly BLPs, and contentious topic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that the "arranging to leave guards behind" (I wrote "arranging") actually happened, and this detail often is mentioned in a way that implied suspicion by journalists. It is different from "they did (successfully) leave guards behind", do you think so? Actually Barak stressed the presence of his wife, as I understand, as a way to exonerate himself. So I added both parts to show that one side said this and one side said that, not to implicate anyone in anything. If the matter is that I added the date January 2014, and not that she did visit the island (which seems to be what the two users above care a lot about), yes, I apologize. I think this was a case of me trying to make a timeline for the different characters in the passage (Barak, Nili Priel, Thiel...) and made mistakes. Deamonpen (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Also at the time I was influenced by sources like this that also claim the January 2014 date Epstein Observer and Almayadeen but I found out Almayadeen is deemed unreliable on Wikipedia and the other is a website, so I added other sources. And I meant that I edited the whole sections on Barak-Epstein-Nili Priel-Thiel-Vekselberg-Carbyne-Valar-Founders Fund simultaneously in a matter of weeks (in four different articles, with lengths, details...etc adjusted for each article), and the multiple sources I used for the section often mentioned the same characters and same stories in different places, and while I edited one article, the others would be changed by other users, so I was influenced and confused by other sources and not just the two I put in that one same edit. Short story: my mistake. I do not deny that I wrote the statement.Deamonpen (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, just to illustrate that when people look at multiple sources that tell the story in different ways at the same time and work with articles that are undergoing many changes, we tend to be influenced by others' opinions, you guys might look at sections like this, where whoever rewrote the section on Barak did read the cited articles (and not just copy and paste my parts in the Epstein, Barak, Thiel and Valar articles), because they pulled out new details from the articles that I had never inserted (like "arranging that the security guys will not come with us to the island," not my paraphrase), but they came to the same conclusion as mine, that Nili Priel did go, and it was in January 2024.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Connections_of_Jeffrey_Epstein&oldid=1365484401#Ex-Prime_Minister_Ehud_Barak Deamonpen (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The passage you link makes the same claim, and I have no doubts that its author read the source, but a claim is verifiable because a particular source supports it, not because another editor or another article repeats it or may reveal something more later. If that article states it too, then that article needs to be corrected as well. Norlk (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

My point is that I and the other editor were both impressed with the email that mentioned Nili and "us", and leaving the guards behind (meaning, Nili was part of the visit plan, while the guards were not), and then there was the part (immediately following this email) Barak complimented the island (which in later accounts appeared to be visited by Barak and his wife later that year, while Barak and Nili Priel did flow to Tampa in January on Epstein's plane but the next part seemed to be cancelled). I (and the other editor, likely) did not think much of the sentence in the article that says later emails did not mention other guests, because no mention seemed to indicate that there was no plan change with Barak and Nili. And this article did contain the information that they used Epstein's private plane. Besides, the other article (Times of Israel) consolidates this impression because it indicates that Barak flew on Epstein's planes on private plans twice (it mentioned the Tampa thing in 2014, but without the month), and Barak's wife was present in both occasions. Certainly I have changed the information in that Wiki article and added the CBC article for clarification. What I mean is, our job as editors will be much easier if, when reviewers find out that we overinterpret the materials, you bring up the matter with us or help fix it yourself first, rather than assume that the others are engaging in bad conduct or with bad intentions. I also treat other people like that. And based on the way you read all the materials mentioned above, your intepretation of materials and events is not always perfect either. I don't assume that you have a habit of making SYNTH because you assumed that "organized by eHarmony investor" = "organized by eHarmony" (organized by Palantir chairman # organized by Palantir, right?), or that because you assumed that Thiel moving to the US when he was ten means he could not have done that before (when he was one). Deamonpen (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: Deamonpen writes just above that they have "changed the information in that Wiki article and added the CBC article for clarification". Those edits are this one at Connections of Jeffrey Epstein and this one at Ehud Barak, made at 02:08 and 02:12 on 2 August, minutes after the comment above linking the passage. Both add the following sentence:

According to Barak, in one occasion, "he and his wife and some security guards paid a three-hour visit to Epstein's home in the U.S. Virgin Islands, but saw only Epstein and some maintenance workers there".

The text inside the quotation marks doesn't belong to Barak. It's the Associated Press's own reporter's summary of him, republished by CBC: note "he" and "his wife". Barak would not refer to himself in the third person. The same wording appeared at NBC, The Hill and other AP reprints. The cited source does not present it as a quotation from Barak at all.

When Deamonpen presents it as Barak's own words, this puts a reporter's words into a living person's mouth (MOS:QUOTE WP:BLP), and reproduces wire copy verbatim without in-text attribution to AP or CBC (WP:COPYQUOTE). At Ehud Barak the same CBC citation was also pasted out in full twice in consecutive sentences, making an unnecessary duplicate of a claim already made in the sentence immediately before it.

Some changes were good: they also removed the unsourced statement that Barak's wife accompanied him to the island and changed "visited" to "planned to visit", which corresponds to what Straight Arrow News actually says ("The emails do not say whether security officers or other guests attended with Barak").

I have corrected both articles (Ehud Barak, Connections of Jeffrey Epstein). I raise it only because it shows a real tendency and the same recurring failure to use sources faithfully when adding material to Wikipedia BLPs. It's not good when the article text doesn't match what the cited sources say. Norlk (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

names of kids added to two BLPs

I think the things here are even worse. Deamonpen had previously violated basic rules and inserted the full names small children not important on wikipedia into biographies of living persons: Matt Danzeisen and Peter Thiel. I won't share revisions here to avoid any problems for the children.

I believe these edits raise serious privacy and BLP concerns for the following reasons:

1. The information identifies non-notable minors

The children have no independent public role or notability, and their names are not necessary to explain either article subject’s career, marriage, or public activities. WP:BLPNAME establishes a strong presumption in favor of privacy for family members especially small children.

2. The names do not appear to have been widely used or supported by reliable sources

The main citation is Briefly.co.za, a surprisingly low-quality celebrity oriented and black SEO-oriented website. Its own article uses sneaky language, stating that “some sources claim” one of the names and that the children’s details “are not public knowledge.” T

The source appears to acknowledge the private or uncertain nature of the information while simultaneously republishing it.

3. One of the names highly likely has been derived from an obituary

The second name added to the Matt Danzeisen article was supported with a user-submitted obituary hosted by Legacy.com. An obituary is a primary family source rather than independent editorial sourcing. Using a passing non-reliable dependent reference in an obituary to spread across the web and wikipedi a minor child name in an unrelated Wikipedia biography appears not meeting WP:BLPPRIMARY and other problems well known to admins.

4. Verifiability alone is not sufficient for private personal information

WP:BLPPRIVACY states the threshold for including personal information about living people is higher than the mere existence of a source that can technically be verified. In this case, the information is both weakly sourced and of no meaningful encyclopedic value.

5. The disclosure creates a high privacy and safety risk with no real need for this.

Publishing the full names of minor children may help them appear in search engines, ai chat bots etc and that may harm the children. The potential harm is therefore significantly greater than any possible encyclopedic profit. Joss Harman (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Now that I think about it I should not have added their names. Are there actual rules about small children, adding personal details deemed not meaningful, using weak sources (I think at the time I did it Briefly was not deprecated. Later someone noted that the source was problematic, removed the kids' names, and I never protested, but up to now I have not seen this mentioned anywhere here in the Perennial source section ) being a severe problem though? If I had wanted to spread scandals, I would have added the part Adrian Wooldridge linked these children to their father's eugenicism 1 (I still use the part in which he said Thiel had four kids). I also remove such private details that other people add but I deem not necessary for the bios all the time. By the way, being sneaky is not an unpopular thing when it comes to anything related to Peter Thiel. Mainstream sources criticize each other for conspiracy theories on Thiel a lot. If I pick other parts in other paragraphs to show that this is a weak source that should not be used to talk about Thiel, I can do away with a lot of mainstream newspapers. Also I did not add those names to Thiel bio because his private life section was already too large, only Danzeisen's. Deamonpen (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME policy states "This is generally interpreted by the community to include the removal of names of non-notable minors from articles about their notable family members, such as when a notable individual births or sires a non-notable minor." DMacks (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If it is about "family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons", I would not argue that they are not exactly low-profile, even though mainstream media often just call them "Peter Thiel's daughters/children", as they are subjects of debates about their father'seugenicism1, supposedly hypocritical attitude in shielding them from products that make tech leaders rich 2 3 Concerns about his family including these children was cited as a reason not to be a megadonor in 2023. The fact they were enrolled in a school in Argentina is also used by NYT and other as one evidence that Thiel has decided to build something longterm (privately, finance-wise, and politically) in Argentina. And also when I used the sources mentioned at the first place I did not think that there were problems with these sources. Deamonpen (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is (the part specifying the use of the names of minors above is also a note explaining the understanding of the community) if relatives (kids included) are relevant to the point they have demonstrable impact on the events regarding the main subject of the Wikipedia bio (not that the relevance level merits Wiki pages of their own), there is no "ban" on using their names. There is caution regarding the case in which documents (legal documents etc) purposedly hide their names, but there is no such demonstrable situation in this case. In the case of the debate on restricting screentime, it was Thiel who mentioned the kids on his own, then the interviewers aked their ages and he said 3 and 5, and reporters then made it a debate from the materials they gave him. and in the Argentina case, reporters noticed the kids because he let them or someone close to them approach their rooms that he plastered with LOTR posters. And I see no part that says the articles I pick their kids' names from must be the same articles that show these kids as not low profile either. Don't misunderstand me, I now think that we should restrict kids'names. But if the point is if we do that because they are kids, I see no current rules saying so. It is a popular situation in which famous people's bios mention kids' names, as long as some other circumstances (mentioned by the media) also mention these kids. See Elon Musk#Personal life, in whicxh two of his smaller children are mentioned by names - in one case, it is said that there are debates about the child's names and he often carries that child to events, and in the other case the child is related to a custody battle. By this standard, how are Peter Thiel's children low-profile? Deamonpen (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The relevant part of the policy reads: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. (emphasis mine)

The test is: are the names relevant to the reader's complete understanding of the subject. With Musk, you have one child with a debate about their name, and another child who is the subject of public proceedings related to that specific child. The justification is strong for the first one, and situational for the second (e.g., if there are news articles about the child and the custody case, the child's name ties them all together and is useful for understanding).

Does specifically naming Thiel's children aid in the understanding of the subject? I see no justification for that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You can mention the custody case without the child's name and people will still understand that Musk fights a custody case with St.Clair if that is all it is about. I added the part about Thiel worrying about his kids' safety and then did not donate to the Republicans anymore a while ago, but it was removed. The kids' names have also been removed by an editor I think have some connection to Thiel (because around that time I got into arguments with such editors, who in the end seemed not to suspect my intentions too much). I was a bit lazy to fight in the first case although I thought this was fairly important, and I think they have their reasons. I think the reason these children's names could be mentioned is because it is unclear Thiel has 2 or 3 or 4 kids (I have heard all these numbers from different sources) and it is unclear that Thiel shares all of these with Danzeisen. But it is certain that he has two daughters, one of whom he calls his eldest and concerning whom, he said that he wants her to look at a better world in 2100, which he wants to help shape. It is possible he had 2 in 2024 by the time Reuters wrote the part he was worrying about his daughters (2024) and he had four by the time Woolridge mentioned it in 2026. Adding the names show that: 1.Even though the number of children is not clear, some of these children are definitely real, and Financial Times did give some details about how he was as a father in his house (so journalists do have details, not just speculations about a man whom they don't even know whether he actually has children or not); 2.The attitude about his family seems to have changed. In 2024 he did not mention his two children in interviews, but was worried about their safety. In 2026, when he supposedly has four, his attitude towards their safety and details about their persons seem to be more relaxed. Deamonpen (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

No. Just no. That's an inadequate justification.

I don't understand why you are so eager to stretch the rules regarding BLPs, but here we are. I continue to have considerable concerns about your willingness to follow the strict privacy rules Wikipedia has for living subjects.

Please read WP:BLP in its entirety and follow it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, what in the heck do you mean by this? The kids' names have also been removed by an editor I think have some connection to Thiel (because around that time I got into arguments with such editors, who in the end seemed not to suspect my intentions too much). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Especially around the time I created Thiel Capital and Matt Danzeisen and General Matter, editors who have some connection to Thiel or his companies interacted with me quite a lot, with one open a thread saying that my edits were problematic but then resolved the matter with me on my Talk page. Another argued with me about how General Matter should be written, I accepted some of their points and protested others. Then there were editors who were new changed some details, I fought in some cases and left the others alone. Deamonpen (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I am a bit stupid, can you show me the part that says the children's names must come from the sources that show they are not low profile. Because generally, as I understand, on Wikipedia it is possible to use one source that shows that the subject is relevant in one sentence, and use one source that might not be a green source (but not deprecated) to add info in another sentence. As long as this helps illustrate the subject and doesn't force a synth on its own. Also the Brief.co.za article that I originally used show the exact problems I mention. The channel might have other problems, but they are right the fact that different publications explain the number/situation of Thiel's children differently.

Anyway I think the similarity to Musk is that, they have unclear numbers of children, so we should give the readers some clue that which child is talked about. Anyway in this case the children's names have been removed, I have never fought against the removal and don't intend to add children's names in other biographies, so I don't think we should continue to fight on this. Deamonpen (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, I think I should share that in the Jeannette zu Furstenberg article, someone who defines as a feminist repeatedly removed details about her private life and put the sentences talking about her birth circumstance at the end of the article although this is not common in biographies whether about female or male persons, likely with the good intention that people should focus on zu Fürstenberg as a successful businesswoman on her own, so instead of fighting with them or opening an ANI/BLP thread, I added a note that said the company (that she has not inherited yet) is just a "hiddle champion" (i.e. a "Mittelstand"/SME, not a huge business, although the source that defines it as such does not talk about zu Fürstenberg directly), and then I added some details in the career section about her activities concerning SMEs. After that the removals do not continue anymore. I think "tangiblity" affects people like that. Deamonpen (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, I notice that this complaint is the second time you have interacted with another user since you created your account and you have made 4 edits including the two edits you did for your user page (sorry, I checked because you appeared to know much more about rules than me). Did you pay attention to my work a lot? Deamonpen (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

My kind reply, sorry for a delay. Deamonpen states that I have made 4 edits and adds "sorry, I checked because you appeared to know much more about rules than me". My contributions are public and they are easily chekced - over a thousand. We are here to build an encyclopedia rather than compare edit counts or make up numbers, so I would not normally mention it.

I raise it because it is the same pattern my report is about: a confident factual claim about a person, presented as verified, that the reality or source or record/log does not support. It happened here, it happened there, it heppened in a thread about that exact conduct, after several wikipedia editors already explained the problem. It will likely keep happening.

This is also the second time here that Deamonpen has speculated about an someone's motives. For example, the first was the assumption that a Wikipedia editor who deleted the children's names allegedly had "some connection to Thiel".

I have no view on Deamonpen's intentions and am not asking for anything beyond what I originally requested. ~2026-42948-12 (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Deamonpen states that I have made 4 edits ... My contributions are public and they are easily chekced - over a thousand.

This is confusing. Assuming you're Joss_Harman, that account indeed have only 4 edits, matching the description by Deamonpen, and account I'm replying to have only one edit (one I'm replying to). At least 997 more edits to locate still. ~2026-42826-46 (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

yeah, I see now. I did not notice it's another thread and I treated as a message to me. I was logged out while replying. Norlk (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Joss_Harman I have stated nothing about your motives, dear user. I recounted a story that happened some months ago that I encountered with some users who had problems with my edits, and one of these directly told me they had connections to Thiel companies while another was first thought of as being so by others and I did not see they deny it and they appeared to have intimate knowledge of the Thiel ecosystem by stating things like this person had never done this position without mentioning the source (mind you, people often undergo a lot of positions when working for Thiel). Others were new users that I havem't seen for a while since. And whether they are related to Thiel or not, I said that I agreed with the removal. You are speculating on my motives by saying that I speculated on your motives. I am just impressed that someone I have never talked to happened to notice an edit that I made a long time ago, and deleted by another shortly after without a fight on the Talk page or anywhere, meaning you have paid attention to either the pages or my edit history. But you mentioned certain things that did not happen (me putting those names in Thiel bio). I did not see your reply before. I never said that your history is hidden.---Deamonpen (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Norlk, I talked to Joss Harman not you but I see you have realized it. Regarding the story about editors related to Thiel or his companies, see my reply to Harman. Deamonpen (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Clearly some mistakes have been made here. However, most of the discussion here is about content rather than conduct. I would consider this a warning and move on.Czarking0 (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding. I will try to be more careful.-Deamonpen (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

When a Wikipedia policy/guideline talks about "non-notable minors", it means a person where there is no article with that person as the subject. That is, no blue link for the person is available. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I see in other articles that some editors interpret anything that does not have a blue link as non notable. Usually I don't belong to this school, because this often leads to diminishing articles (subject A is merged to article B, and then section about subject A is reduced, and then it vanishes etc). I don't see Musk's child with Ashley St.Clair has his own article anywhere, but his name is still present in his father's bio, children of Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump (these children don't have blue links) are listed in their fathers' bios (and in this case, without mentioning any other details or circumstances that make them notable), and same with Zuckerberg's daughter on Zuckerberg bio. This is why I find it strange that nobody happens to catch on this, yet they notice Thiel's children's names, which only briefly appeared on Matt Danzeisen's biography (which I imagine is not read by many people). I do not say this to protest the removal of children's names. Deamonpen (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Czarking0

, on content versus conduct: the misattributed quotation I describe above was added at 02:08 and 02:12 on 2 August - just over 4 hours after

Rsjaffe

wrote here that "this synthesis is unacceptable and you must take care when editing, particularly BLPs", while this discussion thread was open. A single sourcing error could be content. But repeating the same type of error just hours after an admin clearly explains it, in the edit presented as the correction of the error is what makes it conduct. ~~~~

Norlk (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Not adhering to NPOV and promotion through WIkipedia

I doubt that user Oindrojalik Watch has a conflict of interest in editing certain areas of topics, mostly contentious topics related to politics of Bangladesh. Issues were raised by me at User_talk:Oindrojalik_Watch#Biased_edits but the user does not understand NPOV and trying to establish their OR as based on sources. For e.g. the user say "cutting legs" = "cutting veins", so we can use cutting veins instead of cutting legs in articles, which is not supported by source in reality.

The user also has tendency to promote here and whitewashing here. Some issues were raised by another user some days ago here but the user instead accused it as political tagging, trolling etc. Similarly they are terming it now as previous here. Need uninvolved editor to asses the issue and settle things down. - Rht bd (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Rht bd.

In my opinion, "severely" was an unnecessary adjective.

As for the "promotions", the English link doesn't work for me, there may be a citation error. Assuming that those citations are all real though, it showing up in that many newspapers may make it actually significant.

I can't speak or read the sources necessary for the other issue.

This feels like an issue that could just be talked about instead of brought here.

Thanks. LightningThrower (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@LightningThrower: Its not just about removing the word "severely". The user modified the text and claimed that the three students beaten by RUCSU General Secretary Salahuddin Ammar and leaders of Islami Chhatra Shibir were from Banned Organisation Chattra League and the attack was in response of the attack from them (the three students). Which is not supported by sources. This edit was done to justify the attack from the Islami Chhatra Shibir members. Rht bd (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what happened there, I must have like glanced over that. Now I see it wasn't just severely. Still, if that information is in the sources provided, it may be in the article. I can't read Bangla, so I'll just try to leave?

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Although Bengali Wikipedia is completely independent of English Wikipedia, but still I want to note that this user had been topic banned from certain political pages in Bengali Wikipedia, and later indeffed for violating topic ban. Rht bd (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

1. Edits or articles are not connected with conflict of interest. example: different types of articles on xtool.

2. What does promote or whitewashing meaning? Kindly please let me know or understand. Give me a chance and come in a discussion. Oindrojalik Watch (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why a man politically tagged me on talk page. This tagging term used for 17 years in Bangladesh for rushing oppositions or opposite people by Hasina govt. Example: Murder of Abrar Fahad, July Uprising/July massacre. And especially Chhatra League's guest room practice, where it shows that they directly killed(!!) murdered students/opposition by this certain tag.

And I don't know that is it right to say on wikipedia that this tagging is being used still now in somewhere! (, , ) So I am really concerned about it.. Oindrojalik Watch (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The articles which you had created (later deleted through AfD) makes it more clear about your COI. Chattra Sangbad is the magazine of BCS and Nurul Islam Saddam is the president of BCS. So, don’t claim that you don’t have COI with this organisation. Rht bd (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Also you had nominated the article of Rakibul Islam Rakib, the secretary/president of Chattra Dal, an anti party of ICS. Rht bd (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

wasn't it a constructive AFD making? Also you gave opinion there to delete it and the article deleted by an admin. Oindrojalik Watch (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I voted delete, because I am a neutral editor and try to follow policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. But my vote is not the issue here, and I am not not saying that you did anything wrong by nominating it for deletion. What I am trying to say here is that your interests and intentions are always around the topics related to ICS and against the anti party of ICS. You are in no way a neutral editor. 19:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Rht bd (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@LightningThrower, From the view of this reply by this IP probably happened by @Rht bd and he is doing Sockpuppetry WP:SOCKPUPPET. Oindrojalik Watch (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

You can start a Sockpuppet investigation and submit your proof about my sockpuppetry if you strongly believe that. Rht bd (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Already answered about COI here and here on talk page. Oindrojalik Watch (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

as Oindrojalik Watch is totally biased editor towards certain political parties, I proposed admins to ban him from political pages of bangladesh. He is already banned on political pages in the Bangla wikipedia. That can be only solution of this. ~2026-42594-94 (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This is your only edit? How do you get in Wikipedia and instantly start making claims on someone's talk page? Whoever you are, you just used a different temporary account on their talk page and for this response? It just seems quite suspicious.

The only way that I see investigation proving anything is if the accounts share the same IP, or maybe a similar geographical location in general. Maybe they could know each other online, but there wouldn't be a way to prove this because the temporary account hasn't made enough edits to use an Editor Interaction Analyzer (and get concrete evidence).

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This TA is clearly not a new user, they have knowledge of ANI and topic ban etc. Possibly someone's sock. Also commented on the talk page of the user. An SPI investigation is needed. Rht bd (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't we need to know the main account to even start an investigation?

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

User using AI in discussions despite three warnings.

~2026-41143-74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has already been warned three times on their talk page to refrain from using AI. It started on 25 July, as they created a talk page section using AI-generated text. On 28 July, they created an ANI thread written by AI accusing me of various disruptions. On 30 July, they created another ANI about me that was too AI-generated and closed.

On 31 July, they created another talk page section, which, as they said, they have now written themselves after being warned not to use it on talk pages before. I responded to the user, and today I woke up to THIS! That's right, an AI-generated reply.

As the user has already been warned three times, I am concerned they are WP:NOTHERE. there is solid ground for a block for LLM misuse, parallel with similar cases (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User using AI in discussions).

Edit: The user had admitted to using AI in the said response, hence I sustain my request. Brat Forelli🦊 11:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Brat Forelli.

It does look like it could be AI, but I put it into a detector and it's not certain. Another detector actually said it's only 11.3% AI, that being zerogpt.com.

I'm don't know whether Wikipedia has a specific AI detection tool or uses feeling to know whether someone is using AI, but this could just be their writing style.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The user has a history (and three warnings of) AI usage in discussions. When it comes to AI text detector, the reply I referred to is in fact easily detected as such. I can provide scans from GPTZero and Pangram. I specifically remove the first "greeting" sentence (i.e. "Hi Brat Forelli). Brat Forelli🦊 14:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, those tools are pretty hit and miss. Just skimming the edits they do read as LLM-generated to me (for example the amount of shortcuts used in some of them). I don't think Wikipedia has specific AI-detection tools other than some edit filters to tag some specific signs (such as oai_citation being used), but there are some resources (WP:AISIGNS, WP:AITALKSIGNS) that provide some general advice on what to spot. IAmNetx (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, I am aware of WP:AISIGNS, and the talk page reply of the user that made me create this ANI is complete has clear indications of AI written text.

Perhaps a simplest example - WP:AIPARALLEL:

I did not just question a couple of sources; I challenged the nature of the remaining journalistic sources wholesale.

Courtesy ping: Jako96, since you were the one that left WP:NOLLM warnings on the user's talk page, do you believe that the diff I refer to is AI-generated? Brat Forelli🦊 17:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd say I definitely do think. Although GPTZero says it's mixed. Jako96 (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The user has now admitted to using AI in the reply I reported. I renew my request to take action. Brat Forelli🦊 06:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Admitting AI use and changing their behaviour is a reason to not take admin action per WP:NOTPUNITIVE. Fences&Windows 14:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive editing by user

Patcha007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Back in November of last year, this user repeatedly recreated {{Diego Maradona series}} and {{Pelé series}} after separate TFD's decided to delete them (TFD for Diego & TFD for Pele). As a result of this behavior they were blocked by Voorts on 2 separate occasions. One of the templates was ultimate protected by BusterD to prevent re-creation but not protected enough. Note that it is very difficult for me to provide diffs to demonstrate this as most of the related diffs have been deleted. During this debacle back in November, Patcha repatedly recreated the pages, under multiple different aliases (for example) and kept recreating the material in their sandbox. Now 10 months later, they have, once again, re-created both templates. Clearly the blocks did not have the needed effect. At this point I request at the very least an indef block from the Template namespace.

See also the previous ANI. It is also worth noting, that they kept copies of both sidebars in their sandbox until this morning to recreate at a later date.

Courtesy pings: Explicit, GiantSnowman, Voorts. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 13:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• I've deleted the re-created templates, and would support an indef block (not just from template space) for this user, given their ongoing disruption and continued refusal to discuss issues. GiantSnowman 13:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  It should be noted that when Patcha007 was notified of this ANI, rather then responding and WP:ENGAGEing, they simply deleted the notice. At this point I agree with GiantSnowman that indef block is warranted. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I pblocked them from templates. Patcha007, you also need to not mark all your edits as minor. No prejudice on further sanctions. Fences&Windows 23:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: it is worth noting that rather than responding to your messages or WP:ENGAGEing in this ANI discussion, they have once again simply deleted the notices from their talk page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a very conscious effort from Patcha to not engage or be part of the community. GiantSnowman 07:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If they make aliases to engage in disruptive behavior, shouldn't they be blocked for sock puppetry? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Sexual harassments and personal attacks 2

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

---

• ~2026-42104-13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-42557-36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-42555-36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP ~2026-42104-13 sexually harassed me and personally attacked others ("sucking" d."), as seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Camilasdandelions&diff=prev&oldid=1366563518, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:~2026-42167-95&diff=prev&oldid=1366565621 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jako96&diff=prev&oldid=1366566344. He is now indef'd. Another IP, ~2026-42557-36, which is very likely the same person, also similarly harassed me as seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jako96&diff=prev&oldid=1367200764 ("sucking d."). Lastly, very likely the same person but with a different IP (~2026-42555-36) similarly harassed me (again, "sucking d.") as seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jako96&diff=prev&oldid=1367200764. I'm requesting an indefinite block to the last IP, also, revdeletion of all these diffs. Also, pinging @Lofty abyss as they are the admin who blocked the second IP, which I'm glad. Thanks, Jako96 (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96, all three TAs have been blocked and the revdels have been applied to the relevant edits on your talk page. Other admins have also blocked the underlying IPs and IP ranges, – Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

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

@Epicgenius thanks, I accidentally showed one diff twice, and didn't show one, here's the last, which also should be revdel'd: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lofty_abyss&diff=prev&oldid=1367202476. Jako96 (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done This is a bit borderline, and would probably not matter in isolation, but taking it in context, I see no reason not to revdel. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm grateful. Jako96 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, my reply on this page at 20:52, 2 August 2026 is also revdeled, weirdly. Jako96 (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96, that was an oversight suppression which hides revisions even from administrators. It doesn't have to do with you specifically; all edits on this page within a 6-hour time period were suppressed. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah! I see now. Jako96 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hounding by Zirthes

I recently took to the edit warring board to report Zirthes. It may be necessary to read the report for full context. including the diffs I put in it (I know, ugh, but I genuinely think it's important here). I personally consider Zirthes's responses in that edit war report thread to be full of misrepresentations of my points and even outright trolling with an emoji at one point. The responder, ToBeFree, determined that my report had merit and asked Zirthes not to repeat the same behaviour. They also granted a page protection request that Zirthes had filed for the relevant article; it's worth noting that the page protection request pointed to edits by various TAs, not just me.

I said the following on ToBeFree's talk page:

I don't feel like Zirthes's short and generic response to your judgement on my report demonstrated genuine understanding of the issue. I also feel like, while it was on the edit warring noticeboard, their additional behaviour in that thread should have been factored in. Finally, although their page protection request was motivated by other things as well, the ultimate result being that they get their wish feels unfair and likely to motivate them to continue.

ToBeFree said that I did think about it for quite a while and had a look at the situation again, but I wouldn't act differently today.

After that exchange, Zirthes has done two things in a very short timespan: firstly, they've functionally denied one of the edit requests I've made on the relevant article. There's nothing objectively wrong with this, as anyone can answer an edit request, but I feel like it's a little bit off to edit war, get told not to edit war, have the page protected, and then deny an edit request (with poor reasoning, in my opinion) made by the very editor you were told not to edit war with. I feel like if I were Zirthes, I would say to myself "maybe I'm not the best person to deal with this request right now". Basically at the same time, they've also come onto another user's talk page discussion I created, in which they weren't mentioned at all, to sternly tell me to shut up and not discuss the matter, essentially (to be clear, "shut up" is not a phrase they actually used).

For full transparency, I've been accused of Wikihounding myself on this very board, to which I said that I was simply trying to clean up the various messes made by that editor. Zirthes seems to believe the same thing, but if you read the edit war report + diffs and then these later comments on another user's talk page, it becomes blindingly obvious that Zirthes is incapable of responding to a single thing I say without creating a strawman argument, to the point that I think it constitutes "joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you just stop please. If anything, you are the one doing the hounding. Zirthes (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) TA, I suggest you drop this topic. I can see where you're coming from, but having read through the ANEW report, the edit request, and the talk page in question, it doesn't come off as Zirthes making strawman arguments or hounding. It comes off as you refusing to listen when they explain the way things work. Zirthes is incapable of responding to a single thing I say without creating a strawman argument borders on WP:ASPERSIONS as none of what you provided backs that up. I think avoiding that page for a while would be the best outcome; aside from minor nitpicks of tone, and questioning how they came to Camilasdandilions' page above, their conduct looks pretty good to me. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

TA, I suggest you drop this topic.

"Drop" how? I don't plan on deleting this thread, nor "doing" anything in regard to this situation other than answering any questions that may come my way from this thread.

aside from minor nitpicks of tone, and questioning how they came to Camilasdandilions' page above, their conduct looks pretty good to me.

You're entitled to your opinion, even if I find it surprising, but I would remind anyone coming along and seeing this that their behaviour unrelated to these two things (tone, going to another user's talk page) was deemed inappropriate edit warring by an admin. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The administrator who handled your first report against me only pointed out that I had violated the three revert rule outlined at WP:3RR. I made it clear through my comments in the report that I was dealing with multiple disruptive edits to the article, but I also took accountability that I had unfortunately violated the three revert rule during the process. As anyone who reads that report will see, the result was the page being protected, which is obviously not what you wanted. No action against myself was taken, and the page was protected because of persistent disruptive edits by temporary users that I brought to light through that report. I already requested page protection prior to that.

You took to the administrators talk page who handled the report, saying that you disagree with the decision for the article to be protected, and then proceeded to accuse them of rage baiting you when you didn't get the response you wanted.

I have explained to you multiple times the correct practice for doing things which you have dismissed and you do not listen to anything me, or other editors, have tried to explain to you. Despite this, you expect other people to listen to you and do what you want, while also making snarky comments and having a questionable tone towards multiple editors. To be honest I don't want to have anymore interactions with you, which is why I muted you. However, you have been editing similar articles to me, and you have once again taken it upon yourself to report me, so I'm here to argue my case. Zirthes (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Your entire first paragraph of this is just you recounting what I already described in the original post.

I have explained to you multiple times the correct practice for doing things which you have dismissed and you do not listen to anything me, or other editors, have tried to explain to you.

Wrong again. In fact, as I outlined in my edit war report, once you disputed the inclusion of a certain review aggregator from a table due to it being an "unreliable source", I ended up removing mention of that same aggregator from the article prose. In other words, I had to remove some of my own content that you were disputing but weren't diligent enough to remove properly yourself, and yet you have the audacity to paint me as an uncooperative editor who refuses to collaborate or consider other's views.

In reality, you only feel dismissed because your responses have been nonsense. Let me give you a quick, practical example. In this response to me on your talk page, you write You are arguing that because Metacritic has a Wikipedia page which explains that it is an aggregate and compiles scores, providing a weighted score, that a reference is not needed for the same thing pertaining to the Metacritic score in the prose. This is, and I say this without exaggeration, the exact opposite of my stance. This is just one of several examples of you strawmanning me.

Despite this, you expect other people to listen to you and do what you want, while also making snarky comments and having a questionable tone towards multiple editors.

I see we've already reached the part where we play desperate whataboutism while digging through the edit history of the person calling us out in order to derail the conversation. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Zirthes (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you two do not respond to the other. If bystanders have a question, they will ask, but talking to each other doesn't seem to help either of you.

TA, when I say "drop the topic", I mean stop commenting about Zirthes anywhere unless asked a direct question. You've made your report, you've drawn scrutiny to their actions, and if something is unclear, an eidtor will let you know. I maintain that the ANEW close does not cast negative light on Zirthes. The ragebait comment diffed by Zirthes above does suggest you're treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The remedy to this isn't to argue that Zirthes is in the wrong, it's to stop arguing altogether. I don't think this report has anything sanctionable, including WP:BOOMERANG, though perhaps a trout for frivolous filings would be in order. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I would like to point out that at 22:12 UTC today, @Zirthes has added sales data from Hits magazine to the article for A*Pop, an album released on 24 July 2026. As I mentioned in my original post in this thread, Zirthes told me at 16:55 UTC today that it was pointless to implement my edit request (Hits magazine's sales data) for the album Music, Fashion, Film, which was released on 24 July 2026, because Billboard/Luminate data (different company with different methodology for gathering data) will be "out soon" ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

For context: An album that is debuting in the low top 50 is highly unlikely to have its sales figure revealed by Billboard/Luminate, compared to an album that is predicted to debut in the top 3. I also opened a discussion on that article's talk page for other editors to give their input if they felt it shouldn't be included. Zirthes (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zirthes has now accused another editor of not "verify[ing] that any proposed edits are accurately supported by the cited sources" for accepting one of my edit requests. When you go to Zirthes's "fix", you can see that they misinterpreted the edit, even down to getting confused about when the article I cited was published. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Please stop the WP:ASPERSIONS. Please make sure to verify [the edit requests' sources] is not an accusation. If you don't understand what they're talking about re: SYNTH, the correct approach is to ask, not to claim it's somehow evidence of malfeasance. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't wish to derail this thread, so I'll just leave this diff here. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I encourage others to check the diff; it contains more WP:ASPERSIONS, directed at me on my talk page, along with telling me to stop posting here. As the behavior is now extending well past the original issue, I now request a 31 h block for WP:PA. They need to stop treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and attempts to explain this have only led to more hostility. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

along with telling me to stop posting here.

I didn't demand you stop posting, but I do think it would be a good idea. Meanwhile (as I outlined in my initial edit war report), Zirthes did follow me onto another user's talk page to tell me that I should stop discussing anywhere on Wikipedia whether it would be good to cite that Metacritic's scores are weighted. According to you, that report does not cast Zirthes in a bad light.

[EDIT AS OF 18:47 UTC] Just a few minutes later, EducatedRedneck has posted a response on their talk page in which they agree that maybe we should stop posting our opinions in this thread and let someone else step in. Please note that I haven't been posting fresh debate points in this thread, only reappearing to post two new pieces of evidence. In other words, EducatedRedneck has proposed I be blocked for 31 hours for suggesting something, then suggested the same thing themselves just a few minutes later, without retracting the request that I be blocked. I guess my desire for this thread not to get derailed was a pipe dream. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting that as I have now apparently become part of the dispute, I won't be responding to TA any further. If anyone has any questions, please ask and I will answer. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Returning to submit additional evidence. Please note that this is chronologically after Zirthes's subsection, available below. Today (5 August 2026), Zirthes has:

• Deleted most of the "release history" table for the new Ariana Grande album, which was mostly created by me
• Implemented my edit request (made today) at the Sugababes article and marked it as answered
• Overhauled the commercial performance section for the new Gracie Abrams album, which was mostly written by me, referring to it in the edit summary as "lazy editing" and accusing it of violating WP:SYNTH (without explaining how)
• "Fixed" the music ratings template I just added to the article for the upcoming Phoebe Bridgers album

With the exception of an edit to Zara Larsson's article at exactly midnight UTC, these are the only articles Zirthes has edited today

Pinging the other users who have commented on this thread so far, in case they wish to comment - EducatedRedneck (talk · contribs), SunflowerWizard (talk · contribs), Horsers (talk · contribs) ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Of the above listed links the one I am most concerned with is the second one where Zirthes marks your question as answered, which from what I can tell they should not have done. However the rest appear mostly like general clean up or content disputes in an a topic area that they were already editing in, all of which can be taken to the talk pages and discussed. I don't really have an appetite for this thread any longer, and would appreciate if you did not ping me further. 🌻SunflowerWizard🌻 (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The inability to admit when you're wrong is truly astounding. You're right, their only edits the whole day being to respond to my edit request an hour after it was posted or undo several thousand bytes of my work across three different articles was a pure coincidence.

all of which can be taken to the talk pages and discussed.

Well no, they can't be discussed, because Zirthes said yesterday in this very thread that I will not however, engage in any further discussion with you, so please do not attempt to leave any messages on my talk page or interact with me in any other way. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly why I, and all others in this thread, have opted to stop engaging with it. Read WP:Battleground. I have nothing left to say on this matter and will not be responding further. 🌻SunflowerWizard🌻 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly why I, and all others in this thread, have opted to stop engaging with it.

How are you counting this? Horsers has made no comment about not wanting to be mentioned or engage any more. Zirthes doesn't count; of course the person being reported for hounding wants evidence to stop being posted. EducatedRedneck did say he would stop engaging, and then continued to engage. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND and persistent disruptive editing by ~2026-41404-95

The temporary user ~2026-41404-95 is consistently displaying behaviour which violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, as well as submitting multiple disruptive edits to various articles.

I first encountered their disruptive behaviour on the article Music, Fashion, Film, where they attempted to add a score from an aggregate website (Album of the Year) that has been deemed unreliable at WP:ALBUMAVOID, while also deviating from the article's established citation style, claiming they were "experimenting". After I explained that they can't do either of these things citing the relevant policies, they proceeded to leave a very hostile message on my talk page defending themselves while implying that I was making things worse.

They also attempted to manually add an aggregate score to the Music, Fashion, Film article from AnyDecentMusic? without using the ADM template from Template:music ratings, due to them disagreeing with the wording that the template generates of "AnyDecentMusic?", instead of "Any Decent Music" which they personally prefer. This was done without seeking consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums for how "AnyDecentMusic?" should be worded, and deviating from the established wording presented by the ADM template, which seems to be a violation of WP:STONEWALL. They have done a similar edit regarding the wording of AnyDecentMusic? as "Any Decent Music" using the manual aggregate template on multiple other articles within a few days of each other.. In regards to Album of the Year, the user has attempted to argue that it should be considered a reliable source at , however a consensus on the topic has yet to be reached and they are taking it upon themselves to add the source to multiple articles anyway.

I responded to their message on my talk page attempting to explain where they are going wrong. Following on from this, they proceeded to report me for edit warring, after which I responded explaining clearly why I decided to change or revert their edits. It was concluded by the administrator handling the report that I did violate the three-revert rule, however the result of the report was the Music, Fashion, Film article being semi-protected due to persistent disruptive editing (which I was trying to prevent), and no action against myself was taken. It might be worth noting that I did request the page to be protected prior to this due to multiple disruptive TA editors. After this decision was made, which was obviously not what the user wanted, they took to the administrator who handled the report's talk page saying that they weren't satisfied with the outcome, while accusing me of not showing genuine understanding of where I went wrong. When they didn't get the response they wanted from the administrator, they accused them of rage-baiting. Additionally, during the time the report was active, ~2026-41404-95 put another message on my talk page accusing my English language skills of not being "up to par" for editing English Wikipedia, which they have subsequently done once again in a separate dispute.

Another article which they attempted to remove the ADM template from and replace it with the manual "Any Decent Music" entry is A*Pop, which occurred after they attempted to do the same to Music, Fashion, Film. After the editor Livelikemusic reverted their edit, ~2026-41404-95 first attempted to go to Livelikemusic's talk page, and then started a discussion on the A*Pop article talk page questioning why their edit was reverted while once again adopting a questionable tone. Livelikemusic had already explained where the user went wrong prior to this on the A*Pop talk page, although the user seems to have ignored the message (admittedly they weren't directly mentioned).

Following on from this, another incident involving ~2026-41404-95 took place on the article Petal (album), where the user attempted to add references explaining Metacritic's weighted scores, which they had also attempted to do on all the other album articles previously mentioned, and manually add the score into the prose without using the Metacritic prose template. They had previously argued on my talk page when I questioned them on the relevance of adding refernces for what weighted means that because Metacritic has a wikipedia article, its methodology for how their scores are weighted doesn't necessarily need to be referenced as it is explained in its article, which is clearly a violation of WP:USERGENERATED and WP:CIRC, while saying that because AnyDecentMusic? doesn't have a wikipedia article, the way its sources are weighted definitely does need a reference. The user also wiki-linked to the article Weighted arithmetic mean in the prose which disrupts flow. Neither of these things are common practice in other album articles (wiki-linking to the weighted arithmetic mean page or including citations for how aggregates weigh their scores, the latter bordering on WP:OVERKILL). Nor have they attempted to reach a consensus on the matter at WikiProject Albums, as with their insistence on wording AnyDecentMusic? as Any Decent Music.

When the editor Camilasdandelions reverted ~2026-41404-95's edit in question on the Petal (album) article, the user once again took to this editor's talk page questioning why their edit was reverted. They argued that the template for Metacritic prose doesn't contain a reference explaining that the score is weighted, as their reason for not using the template, and were given this response , yet proceeded to be problematic and wouldn't let it go.

I became involved in this discussion on Camilasdandelions talk page as I was actively editing the Petal (album) article at the time and came across the dispute via the page's edit history, and it was an issue I had recently experienced with them so I felt I could offer my own input. ~2026-41404-95 proceeded to report me for a second time, this time for hounding seemingly stemming from my participation in the discussion. During the subsequent discussion under the report, they have clearly engaged in behaviour that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND (as they have done throughout most of their prior actions mentioned here), while accusing me of creating "strawman" arguments. In my opinion, their behaviour is what actually constitutes of hounding, while also displaying numerous disruptive editing practices, battleground behaviour, and borderline harassment of myself anytime I make a change to a page that isn't what they want despite following Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

An additional incident of note took place on the editor SNUGGUMS talk page, where ~2026-41404-95 was making accusations that the formatting of references is not important (specifically the dates) because it doesn't show on "reader's screens". They were once again were very hostile towards this editor and accused their intentions of only being to "boss people around" rather than to "build an encyclopedia". To me, this is a blatant example of them dismissing the importance of correct reference formatting practices which seems especially relevant considering the previous incidents I have mentioned here. The latest incident took place on the article Ariana Grande, where ~2026-41404-95 requested an edit which was not supported by the sources they provided and constituted of WP:SYNTH.

My intentions have only been to educate ~2026-41404-95 of the correct editing practices, which they have consistently ignored and spun into a pattern of defensive and problematic behaviour, not just against myself but also other editors. These incidents have caused disruption to the editing of multiple articles. I will accept that my tone towards this user has also been slightly questionable at times, however after my initial exchange with them regarding the first incident I have tried to remain patient and not escalate things further. Unfortunately, they are refusing to do the same while actively causing multiple problems in multiple articles, so I don't see any other option than for this report to be filed.

There may be other incidents that have occurred involving this user, however these are the ones I have chosen to focus on as they have mainly directly involved myself and pages that I have recently edited. This is a very long report, but these occurrences unfortunately aren't particularly straight forward so I felt the need to add as much context as possible. Zirthes (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This eleven-paragraph post is not about a unique incident. Instead, it is a "response" to my post about them further up on this very page. Just by skimming the eleven paragraphs, I can see reference to several things covered in my post. I feel like this is not a good-faith report but rather an unfair attempt to overwhelm me with too much text to reasonably respond to while also distracting from my report.

[EDIT AS OF 00:40 UTC] EducatedRedneck has moved this from its own post on the board and turned it into a subsection of my post ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes I did move it to its own subsection, as it is clearly related. Are you objecting to the move? EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

While I concur with the TA that this is a bit WP:WALLOFTEXTy, I concur with the general complain of BATTLEGROUND. See the above original report by the TA where, from my perspective, the following sequence of events happened:

1. TA made a report, with diffs, alleging hounding
2. I noted that the diffs do not seem to support hounding, and that their own behavior seemed less than ideal.
3. They presented more evidence which failed to show what they were claiming, and I tried to encourage them to drop it, suggesting they weren't helping their case.
4. They became combative with me, treating me as an opponent rather than an uninvolved third party, claiming I was spamming the thread with unsubstantial, hollow repetitions [of claiming he's casting aspersions] (diff), and claimed I was at risk of a WP:BOOMERANG. (N.b.: it should've been WP:VEXBYSTERANG)

I suggest that, if an editor begins turning against uninvolved third parties simply because they don't think their case has merit, that it's textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND.

The last point has the irony that their accusation is that because they don't agree with my characterization of their actions, they imply my characterization is wrongdoing, when they've also objected that it's invalid to characterizing their accusations as lacking evidence and thus WP:ASPERSIONS when I do it. I'm confused on whether they believe it's actionable or not, and it suggests WP:BATTLEGROUND choosing of an approach based on what will "win", rather than what is consistent with the rules.

To that end, I echo my above reuqest for a 31 hour block on the TA for WP:BATTLEGROUND. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm relieved that EducatedRedneck has turned this into a subsection, thereby eliminating the possibility of someone encountering this post without any of the previous context, but now I'm stuck with what to do next. If I respond to this entire eleven-paragraph, 12700-byte post line-by-line, it will make any admins who come across this post just think "Ugh" (there's that famous quote, "Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."). If I only respond to parts of it, it looks like I'm cherrypicking. If I rush to respond, I look desperate and my points probably won't be very well-thought-out. If I take a long time to respond, it looks like, "Oh shit, this TA has all this evidence of wrongdoing against them and they've disappeared." I truly feel like dropping this much text on me, so much of it being out of context, should be considered yet another extension of Zirthes's hounding of me that's been going on the past few days. This is really getting me down. I'm going to pick a handful of the most egregious examples of them misrepresenting me and respond to those, because there's no good way for me to handle this anyway.

They also attempted to manually add an aggregate score to the Music, Fashion, Film article from AnyDecentMusic? without using the ADM template from Template:music ratings, due to them disagreeing with the wording that the template generates of "AnyDecentMusic?", instead of "Any Decent Music" which they personally prefer. This was done without seeking consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums for how "AnyDecentMusic?" should be worded, and deviating from the established wording presented by the ADM template, which seems to be a violation of WP:STONEWALL.

I'm not doing this because I personally prefer "Any Decent Music" to "AnyDecentMusic?". I'm doing it because, as far as I understand it, "AnyDecentMusic?" is a violation of MOS:TM. While it's technically true that I've not sought consensus about this at WikiProject Albums, I personally told you during my report of you at the edit warring noticeboard that I tried to get a discussion about this going in March 2026 at the music ratings template's talk page. To this day, no one has responded. While I'm open to the possibility of being incorrect, I also don't see how WP:STONEWALL applies to this at all.

They had previously argued on my talk page when I questioned them on the relevance of adding refernces for what weighted means that because Metacritic has a wikipedia article, its methodology for how their scores are weighted doesn't necessarily need to be referenced as it is explained in its article, which is clearly a violation of WP:USERGENERATED and WP:CIRC, while saying that because AnyDecentMusic? doesn't have a wikipedia article, the way its sources are weighted definitely does need a reference.

This exact issue right here is why I have questioned your English abilities. As I have told you several times, I am not arguing that because Metacritic has a wikipedia article, its methodology for how their scores are weighted doesn't necessarily need to be referenced as it is explained in its article. As you can see in the very diff you link to as evidence for this, I say: Exactly. So we shouldn't leave the fact that Metacritic uses a weighted average unsourced just because it has a Wikipedia article to explain that. On three different pages now (the edit warring noticeboard, your own talk page, and the incidents noticeboard), you have told me that I think Metacritic's averages being weighted shouldn't be sourced. On three different pages, I have told you, in plain words, that that is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Also, again, I am not saying we need to source the methodology of how Metacritic weights its averages; I'm saying we need to source the fact that the averages are weighted at all.

In regards to Album of the Year, the user has attempted to argue that it should be considered a reliable source at , however a consensus on the topic has yet to be reached

This is essentially true. I did start a talk page discussion about Album of the Year's critic aggregation and the discussion is still ongoing. Please note that this discussion was started at 13:39 UTC, 29 July 2026

and they are taking it upon themselves to add the source to multiple articles anyway.

This, to me, is the most egregious part of this entire post. Look at the timestamps on these three examples of me "add[ing] the source to multiple articles anyway":

• 23:47 UTC, 28 July 2026
• 22:11 UTC, 28 July 2026
• 22:34 UTC, 28 July 2026

These are the night before I started the discussion. And now, here's my own evidence: the very first time I was made aware that Album of the Year was considered unreliable. As you can see, the timestamp is 23:51 UTC, 28 July 2026. That is after all these pieces of "evidence". I have not added Album of the Year to any article after finding out it's on the WikiProject Albums list of bad sources.

I am so sick of this bullying. Please, someone step in and help me. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, complaining about someone else posting a wall of text with your own wall of text is a bad move, even if you admit you're "stuck" on what to do. Additionally, having gone and read this report, you are very clearly in the wrong and not being bullied or hounded. Multiple editors have told you this now, but rather than take their advice, you've doubled down and functionally reiterated your argument. Even if we are to assume that you are right about everything that you say, your treatment of other editors by lashing out at them when they offer adivice or criticism is a problem in and of itself. I would highly suggest just stepping away or risk a WP:BOOMERANG, because we're now entering WP:IDHT territory. 🌻SunflowerWizard🌻 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, complaining about someone else posting a wall of text with your own wall of text is a bad move, even if you admit you're "stuck" on what to do.

Although I don't plan on deleting my response or trying to "change course", I'm curious, do you have an opinion on how I should have responded to this?

you are very clearly in the wrong and not being bullied or hounded. Multiple editors have told you this now,

Multiple editors have told me I'm not being bullied or hounded? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but only one (EducatedRedneck) has. Obviously, you can't count yourself, because then it wouldn't make sense to include the part about me "ignoring their advice". If you just mean multiple editors have told me that I'm in the wrong, about what exactly? Again, this incident stems from an edit warring report that an admin determined had merit.

Even if we are to assume that you are right about everything that you say

Well, you don't really need to assume anything. I provided evidence for my responses here. Could you please at least address my final point? (The one that I called the most egregious part of the post.) ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Breaking my own rule above, but I do agree that on that point the timeline doesn't add up. The warning came after the three edits. If those three edits were wrong, they were wrong under WP:BOLD. So editing against consensus in that way should not be on the list of offences. My concerns about WP:BATTLEGROUND remain, as they do not touch on that claim, but it would be helpful if Zirthes struck that portion from their post. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point conduct is my main concern, given their replies. 🌻SunflowerWizard🌻 (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

My opinion would be to admit you aren't being hounded and back out of your initial report. Was Zirthes edit warring before? Sure. They've admitted as much. The result of that was no action against them. In response you have now reported them again accusing them of hounding, when the diffs provide look significantly more like YOU hounding THEM. As for multiple editors, I should have phrased that better, and instead meant multiple people are disagreeing with the changes that you want, and everyone in this thread (thus far), other than you, has come to the conclusion that you are not being hounded. Even if you don't want to count myself or Zirthes, another uninvolved person saw this and came to that conclusion. As for the final part, thats a content issue, not a conduct one, and I am significantly more concerned with your conduct, which you noticeably neglected to make a reply about. 🌻SunflowerWizard🌻 (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

My opinion would be to admit you aren't being hounded and back out of your initial report.

No. Firstly, because I am being hounded. Secondly, you want me to completely drop the original thread and let Zirthes flip everything around to be only about me? That would be absurd.

In response you have now reported them again accusing them of hounding, when the diffs provide look significantly more like YOU hounding THEM.

How have I hounded them? Since the edit war report, I have not initiated contact with them other than on this board. They have initiated contact with me via Camilasdandelions's talk page, the Music Fashion Film talk page, and the A*Pop talk page - an incident which I haven't even mentioned because I didn't find it significant (they jumped into a conversation I was having with a user called livelikemusic to ask me why I wasn't having the conversation on livelikemusic's talk page, despite me starting the thread by saying that I tried to have it on livelikemusic's talk page but they wanted it on the A*Pop talk page). If you're going to accuse me of hounding Zirthes, I'm going to need some proof.

everyone in this thread (thus far), other than you, has come to the conclusion that you are not being hounded

True, but "everyone" still means two people (EducatedRedneck and you). Not nothing, but still

As for the final part, thats a content issue, not a conduct one, and I am significantly more concerned with your conduct, which you noticeably neglected to make a reply about.

So it was a bad move to respond with a "wall of text" of my own, but I also should have addressed more? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

To be honest it's evident that you don't particularly care about what any other editors have to say. This report has just become unhinged rantings on your part which don't help your case at all. I tried my best to outline everything properly in my report against you, however so many things have happened that it was way too long and to be honest I don't care enough to condense it down. At this point I'm leaving this fully to administrators to deal with because I'm not going to engage with you any further or make any further reports or comments on the matter. However, if you continue to display disruptive editing practices or edits that violate Wikipedia policy and guidelines on articles that I have a particular interest in, I will correct those edits without hesitation. I will not however, engage in any further discussion with you, so please do not attempt to leave any messages on my talk page or interact with me in any other way. Thanks. Zirthes (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

To be honest it's evident that you don't particularly care about what any other editors have to say.

Wrong again. In fact, as I outlined in my edit war report, once you disputed the inclusion of a certain review aggregator from a table due to it being an "unreliable source", I ended up removing mention of that same aggregator from the article prose. In other words, I had to remove some of my own content that you were disputing but weren't diligent enough to remove properly yourself, and yet you have the audacity to paint me as an uncooperative editor who refuses to collaborate or consider other's views.

If that sounds familiar, it's because I already typed that three days ago, and you still haven't addressed it.

I tried my best to outline everything properly in my report

Wrong again. You filled it with intentional misrepresentations and outright lies. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Zirthes, this report is already too long, and back-and-forth between us and the TA accomplishes nothing, as they have demonstrated WP:IDHT quite evidently regarding feedback within this very thread. People are wrong on the internet all the time; let them be wrong and have the last word. Uninvolved editors will see the truth, or if they have questions, they'll ask. Responding to them at this point seems to just aggravate them further, lengthens the report, and produces no clarity. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

they have demonstrated WP:IDHT quite evidently regarding feedback within this very thread

WP:IDHT is about when editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after the community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. It is not when a TA responds to three people dogpiling them with a barrage of absurd arguments and outright lies.

WP:ASPERSIONS is when an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe, such as if someone is spreading rumors that an editor "seems to be" a convicted criminal or "might be" paid to deliberately spread disinformation on Wikipedia. It is not when a TA correctly says that someone is making a straw man argument.

WP:STONEWALL is when, during the consensus-building process, an editor repeatedly push[es] a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution. It is not when a TA corrects the name of a website per MOS:TM without "seeking consensus" at a WikiProject talk page.

---

At this point, I think Wikipedia needs to introduce a policy that editors who spout completely irrelevant policy abbreviations for the sole purpose of making bystanders go "Damn, they sure are breaking a lot of different policies!" should be punished harshly. EducatedRedneck, when are you going to actually stop engaging with me and making unfounded comments about me, like you said you would yesterday? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

As you've asked a direct question, I'll answer. I have only addressed your response twice. The first when you seemed to object to the consolidation of the two related reports (as I can't think of why you'd note it otherwise), and the second when I agreed with you above. And now when responding to a direct question. I am uncertain what you would have preferred that I do; not try to fix it if I thought you objected to the consolidation? Not identify that you had a point re: the timeline of the content dispute? I continue to deny that I have made any unfounded comments, and challenge you to provide a diff where I said otherwise. I have not responded to you otherwise. I trust this answers your questions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The first when you seemed to object to the consolidation of the two related reports (as I can't think of why you'd note it otherwise)

Huh? I literally typed I'm relieved that EducatedRedneck has turned this into a subsection, thereby eliminating the possibility of someone encountering this post without any of the previous context. If you're talking about the part where I typed [EDIT AS OF 00:40 UTC] EducatedRedneck has moved this from its own post on the board and turned it into a subsection of my post, that's because you doing so changed the context of the comment I attached that edit to. The comment was saying "This is meant to distract from my report", which doesn't hold quite as much water if someone comes along and thinks it was always a subsection of my report.

Remember, I'm the one treating Wikipedia as a battleground, but you can't think of any reason someone could notate that a comment has been moved to a different part of the page unless it's a personal attack on your decision-making. At this point, the outright lying (and yes, I'm going to use the word lying) about everything I say or supposedly think is getting kind of funny, actually.

Not identify that you had a point re: the timeline of the content dispute?

At this point, the fact that you conceded that one of Zirthes's egregious lies was an egregious lie really doesn't matter to me. Gee, thanks for kneeling down and offering me a lollipop between stomping on my head. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if that comment doesn't fall foul of WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. I just found this thread after my own interaction with the TA following this discussion on my talk page, which has been civil enough (the date does coincide with this discussion somewhat); and the TA has continued to add citations for the weighted average, e.g. on the Little Miss Twain page (which, unless I am mistaken, is where this arises from?). Horsers (talk, contributions) 15:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Horsers I'm afraid I'm having trouble parsing your comment. Are you suggesting the TA is seeing incivility where none is there, that I am, or some other option? Re: Little Miss Twain, I can't comment on the content dispute which precipitated this filing, only that I perceive there to be a behavioral issue, regardless of the original content dispute. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I meant that the line "Gee, thanks for kneeling down and offering me a lollipop between stomping on my head." is rather harsh and to me sees to be overstepping the mark for civil conduct, though perhaps that's me being overly prudish. Sorry for not being clear enough on that, I'd just finished reading this entire thread so was honestly a little confused myself what I was reading at times. Horsers (talk, contributions) 16:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you for clarifying! I wanted to be sure I didn't misjudge my own responses. Cheers! EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I just found this thread after my own interaction with the TA following this discussion on my talk page, which has been civil enough

Correct, because you've been respectful and haven't been uncivil first, misrepresented me, or hounded me, which is when I get angry with people.

and the TA has continued to add citations for the weighted average,

I can't tell if you're presenting this as a criticism or not, but I want to reiterate that not a single person has actually disputed me adding citations for Any Decent Music or Metacritic using weighted averages. Zirthes, for example, has said we don't need citations for the way in which the averages are weighted, which is not what the citations are for. You said that we don't need citations for what weighted averages are, which is not what the citations are for. Camilasdandelions said the they removed the citations from Petal (album) because template:Metacritic prose doesn't have them, but they didn't actually present a reason - not even one based purely on personal feeling or preference - for why the citations made the article worse; it was just WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL. This is what's so frustrating - people keep making arguments against edits that I'm not making.

[EDIT AS OF 16:36 UTC] Including this diff from Horsers's talk page, which I feel is extremely relevant ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I just presented the continued adding of the citations as circumstantial evidence; I'd reiterate my suggestion to seek consensus that I've already made, but I will not be editing any of these pages. Since you've linked to your comment on my talk page, I'll link my reply to it too. Horsers (talk, contributions) 16:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Legamerprech

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

I have no idea what this user is trying to do, but what he is doing is creating a lot of work for other people to clean up. He has repeatedly removed the TFD template from Template:Artistic swimming at the 2028 Summer Olympics. He has repeatedly recreated templates that have already been deleted via the TFD process. His talk page is littered with complaints and warnings. Someone please drop a hammer on this guy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Legamerprech has continued his disruptive editing. He has continued to re-create Template:Diving at the 2028 Summer Olympics and Template:Swimming at the 2028 Summer Olympics even after they have already been deleted once. He continues to remove TFD templates from templates. His response on his talk page was Can you please stop to delete my thing. I create a new templates for Summer olympics 2028. That tells me he has zero business editing on the English-language Wikipedia per WP:CIR. Pinging User:LightandDark2000, User:Sportsfan 1234, User:Ajheindel, User:Jonesey95, who have all left warnings on this user's talk page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes I would agree with Bgsu98 here, I don't sense any bad intentions, but they don't seem to understand what they are doing and it is quite annoying to clean up. The warnings don't seem to be having any impact. Ajheindel (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed a block is needed urgently to prevent further damage. The user is WP:NOT HERE. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Even though there has been disruptive behavior since end of June (particularly regarding templates, the "marathon swimming issue",and preemptive edits for the 2028 Olympics), the user had actually been improving articles prior to that—at least from what I’ve observed (even if the lack of edit summaries annoys me).

Therefore, a longer temporary ban is likely appropriate, though I hope it leads to an improvement in behavior. Miria~01 (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from template space. Hopefully, this is will stop the disruption with templates but allow them to continue with useful contributions. -- Whpq (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it did not. I was not aware of this thread until I saw your notification on their Talk, @Bgsu98I have blocked Legamerprech from article space as well. The discussions @Deepfriedokra and I have had with them do not inspire confidence they have the English-language ability to edit here. Unfortunately it appears the next step is indef unless things improve. Star Mississippi 01:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I wasn’t going to pursue the matter any further, but I got the feeling their English was simply not strong enough to understand why they were blocked, much less how to address it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking at their posts post-block, especially on Deepfriedokra's talk page, yeah this is unfortunately a cut-and-dried CIR case IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I was either unaware of this thread or forgot about it. They made a series of ineffectual duplicate unblock requests on their talk. (I got there from the malformed unblock request edit filter.) They have edited w/o problems on Italian and French language Wikipedias. I get the impression they would be more constructive there. My grandmother came from Germany and never fully mastered English. She spoke what was called "broken English" when I was young. Kudos for trying, but the appellant is harder to communicate with than she was. Seventy years in this country, she was. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

SIGH 1, SIGH 2, and SIGH 3. I assume @Legamerprech: is aware of this discussion. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I have changed the block to sitewide as they appear to lack the competency to edit in any namespace. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

They are still making repeat requests to be unblocked. I suggest revocation of TPA. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yoinked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Not Here concern Themightyspoon55

Unfortunately, I have to highlight some concern I have with Themightyspoon55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Rather, their editing is consistent with being here to promote. I first came across Draft:Reuben Gobezie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is really not that bad as far as promotional drafts go. Normally I would decline and move on. However, I had an SPA concern which I alleviated by looking at their contributions. Unfortunately this is where I saw a reference to the blog of a local HVAC business as a source for this Canadian town. A reference to a business selling equipment as the source for this Spanish sport. I'll note the widespread use of "adding additional reference" as the edit summary as an identifier. A blog for a company selling housewrap on the subject article. There are several more examples but I think you get the point. Housewrap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Copper peptide GHK-Cu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Selkirk, Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Darcy Oake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Czarking0 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Well spotted, Czarking0. I've indeffed as advertising/promotion only, reverted spam additions, and tagged Darcy Oake. This draft about Terry Williams, an SEO manager, was also clearly AI generated. Terry Williams is/was Oake's manager, so there's likely a COI. Fences&Windows 15:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:MASSACTION by Vonterrio

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

New user Vonterrio has been editing a large number of pages relating to horror movies, changing plots to start with "In 2007" for example. I have attempted to reach out but no response or change in behaviour. I am also unsure if the other changes made are correct either, some of the surnames added to characters are not backed up by sources or corroborated by other material. Balance3641 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I have analyzed some of their edits, and I do NOT think this is a case of NOTHERE. Instead, it appears to be more of an issue of CIR (not using summaries and ignoring the talk page). It is also possible that they are unfamiliar with how the talk page works, as their account was created just today. Expectedly, they may not grasp everything that early. Based on their edits, I don’t think there is any bad faith involved. — Raihanur (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The user is most likely a sock/LTA based on the film pages and types of edits. They are changing film plot details (adding unsourced years and excessive details like how exactly a character is murdered) and adding cast names not supported by the credits. Most of these mass edits are within 2-4 mins of each other. Oh and I guarantee that they will not communicate. We might as well nip this in the bud now before it causes more disruption (and work) to the project. Mike Allen 12:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure they are now editing under ~2026-42543-45. Mike Allen 19:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the exact same editing pattern. Most likely a sock, so this needs admin intervention... — Raihanur (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked Vonterrio and the TA as vandalism-only accounts. Fences&Windows 16:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

CurtisPalazola – Competence issue/multiple policy violations

This report addresses the highly problematic conduct of CurtisPalazola. The main conduct issues involve the following:

• Adding trivia and unencyclopedic information to articles (example: );
• Repeatedly adding unsourced claims with a "citation needed" tag (example: );
• When challenged about sourcing, repeatedly adding sources that fail to corroborate the central claim (example: ).

There are numerous more examples. The easiest way to get a flavor is to review the edits where I have had to revert him: (please note that numerous other editors have reverted him too, so it's not just me). Multiple editors have reached out to him on his talk page: User talk:CurtisPalazola, to little effect.

The situation has since escalated a few days ago.

1. First, despite me asking him specifically NOT to add content with a "citation needed" tag, he went and did precisely this here: .
2. I then repeated the request on the article talk page: Talk:2026_in_film#Addition_of_unsourced_claims.
3. Curtis then added back the claims with sources: . Great, I thought, but upon inspection the sources were only tangentially related and did not corroborate the core claim. He has a habit of doing this.
4. Curtis then restored the edit here and again (the latter time logged out). [He's done it again since I filed this report: , , , , , , , , , , , , ]. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If you need a more comprehensive list of violations, please let me know. Betty Logan (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I have given him a warning about using multiple temporary accounts to vandalize 2026 in film. If he uses another temporary account to vandalize the article, then I would suggest creating a new investigation at WP:SPI. HypnoBlader (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

And now another edit war, this time in the page List of highest-grossing films, with more unsorced changes, and hes countinuing the edit war in 2026 in film (also logged out)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from articles and invited to reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• UPDATE: Looks like Curtis is evading his block: . Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked two TAs for block evasion and semi-protected the target article. Fences&Windows 16:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Jeffrey2768 has been identified as a sock account and has been blocked. Jeffrey's edits to the article are here: , . Even though this account requires no further action I am recording it so there is a complete record for future reference. Betty Logan (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Jeffrey has been editing since 2017, but Curtis only started a year ago. It is possible that Curtis is a sockpuppet of Jeffrey. HypnoBlader (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably more likely. Betty Logan (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Posting here for the record: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CurtisPalazola. Vestrian24Bio 08:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Lfzdy

I'm seeking help with Lfzdy (talk · contribs) please - they edit against Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics, which whilst not a proper MOS, is WikiProject guidance and in very wide use, so a de facto MOS. They have been repeatedly told about this by multiple users over the past year at 1 and 2 and and 3 (the latter related to mistakes in formatting as well). This is a clear competency issue for me, which, when combined with a total lack of communication and edit summaries, justifies a wider view.

I note that others users engaged in similar conduct (such as Hew Mun Weng (talk · contribs)) have been blocked for the same behaviour. GiantSnowman 13:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it is very much not a “de facto MOS”. WikiProject guidelines are not policy and nobody is required to follow them. In addition, they may not be used as justification for reversion more than once. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 14:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is required to follow anything on Wikipedia, WP:IAR after all. However, repeatedly editing against a community guideline that is literally used in hundreds of thousands of articles is disruptive, as is the total lack of communication. I refer you again to the HMW precedent. GiantSnowman 14:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Try not following WP:BLP and see what happens. WikiProject guidance has absolutely no official standing, as I pointed out in my closure when you withdrew your attempt to have HMW blocked for it and as you were told by multiple people and acknowledged in that thread. HMW was blocked, but not for 'violating a de facto MOS' - they were partially blocked from articlespace for failure to communicate, for the purpose of forcing communication, and chose instead of communicating to quietly poof. Now, the fact Lfzdy isn't communicating is a cause for concern, and there may be grounds for a block to force communication, because there is a general consensus they're editing against and there are concerns about that they are not responding to. But saying they're repeatedly editing against a community guideline that is literally used in hundreds of thousands of articles is not, itself, any grounds for blockage. I bold for emphasis because you've been told this before: it's not a guideline. A "guideline" is an official Wikipedia thing. This is not. It's a WikiProject essay detaling what may be a best practice, but it's not a policy, it's not a guideline, it's not the MOS, and continuing to refer to it as such can eventually be seen as disruptive on your part. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This very same issue is an ongoing problem in aviation articles as well. Perhaps some policy page needs to be edited/rewritten to make this fact explicitly clear (because apparently it isn't enough so already). Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

We already have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Perhaps it doesn't make clear enough that this means editors cannot dictate style guidelines etc in a WikiProject but IMO the problem as much as anything is not editors being unaware but instead it's editors refusing to accept it. For example in the case of MMA articles, there was and possibly still is a belief that they get to choose to only use Sherdog over all other sources even better ones. This is clearly against RS etc and it was made clear to editors multiple times but many must didn't care since they wanted their preferred source. Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

a community guideline that is literally used in hundreds of thousands of articles there's your problem. You seem not to be able to grasp that "community guidelines" have zero standing or power over articles/editors at all. None. They are not "used in articles". Editing "against" them is not a violation of any sort, is not reportable, and is always allowed. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you may have gotten a touch hyperbolic. A racist screed is against many Wikiproject guidelines, but that doesn't mean it's always or even ever allowed to post one. As for community guidelines, WP:RS says at the top that it's a Wikipedia guideline. I'm pretty sure it's enforceable. WP:AGF is, too. Community guidelines are indeed enforceable. WikiProject guidelines, however, are not. Wikiproject versus project consensus is, I think, the issue here, per Nil Einne.

I'll also say that while Wikiprojects don't have standing re: making rules, they can represent large blocs of editors who can form a consensus. When editors object to a change, citing a WikiProject consensus, it seems to me that a new consensus would have to be obtained to change it. Failing to do so would indeed be disruptive.

An example: Suppose for some reason I decided that in Chess, because they're common words, white and black should never be capitalized, and started making those changes. Someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess notes that this is against their convention. If I ignore that and keep making my changes anyway, I am editing against the consensus of those 10 editors. If I really want to decapitalize "black" and "white", I'd need to come to a new consensus, either on that Wikiproject, as a new MOS, or on each page I want to make the change on. Absent that, I'd be clearly violating WP:CON. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Bingo. The point of LOCALCONSENSUS is that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale (my emphasis). As far as I am aware, there is no wider community consensus on how soccer player stats tables should display, ergo the WP:FOOTBALL guidelines - which have been in place for many, many years - is the de fact consensus.

But as I have said repeatedly, that is not the main or only issue with this editor. The issue is continued refusal to communicate. GiantSnowman 18:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Except that this layout you try to impose is not the "de facto" consensus as displayed in actual articles, but a backwater page very few people know about and even less follow. The layout as used by Lfzdy is not some bizarre change (never mind not vandalism at all), but a pretty standard (and very logical) way of presenting things. I note that you are now quite deceptively changing the "issue" you have. Your warnings for this editor were never for "refusal to communicate", your opening post only added it as an afterthought, and frankly, I can hardly blame them for not communicating with a bully who tries to force through his preferences with warnings and claims of vandalism and incompetence. Fram (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to ask at WP:FOOTBALL as to whether they think it's a 'backwater page'. I would do so but don't want to be accused of canvassing.

You can dismiss as a bully, that's fine (I obviously disagree) - but you are blinded to the fact that this editor has, in 11 years, never ever used a talk page (user or article or other), and as far as I can see, never used an edit summary, see this. GiantSnowman 19:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Then, perhaps, you could have given them positive guidance about that issue, instead of vandalism and incompetence warnings for productive edits which follow tboth the internal logic of those tables, and the example set on many other similar pages? Fram (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, as I stated in my OP, I am not the only user who has attempted to reach out over the years... GiantSnowman 19:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Fram, you're right, I could have been more patient with them - but, given the previous posts by other users which have been ignored, forgive me for not thinking it would have made any difference. GiantSnowman 19:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards. If the community has made no decisions regarding a formatting method, then all plausible formatting methods are equally valid. ExtantRotations (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: according to you, when every year of a column is filled with "—", then somehow the totals have to be "0" anyway, and an editor totalizing "—" with the utterly logical "—" should get a level 4 "next time you may be blocked" vandal warning over this? Quick, block the editors who performed the same "vandalism" at e.g. Mark O'Brien (footballer, born 1992) or Danny Grant (footballer) or Conor Pepper or Conor Clifford or Sinclair Armstrong or countless other articles. Fram (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I question the judgement in making the argument that the supposed undocumented broad consensus for WP:FOOTY project advice can be enforced at ANI, considering that two weeks ago that advice was called upon to block an RM, only for it to be explicitly rejected as local consensus. You would think the next step after something like that happens is to start an RfC on the advice page, not to attempt to have it be enforced at ANI! –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 16:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I came here for help and guidance and further eyes on a situation - the fact it has turned into this makes me totally understand why some users refuse to be part of the community tbh. GiantSnowman 17:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Despite my admittedly sarcastic tone, I'm not here to have a grudge or be an annoyance – I haven't supported tbanning you and I have no intention to. My point is that without the little blue checkmark at the top of a page, people will treat an advice page as just that; advice. If a piece of advice is followed on hundreds of thousands of articles, then it ought to be in a guideline, not on a page with sound and unsound advice (such as the bit about stadium article titles) mixed together with no way to tell them apart. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong either, I appreciate the advice, and maybe WP:FOOTBALL will seek to formalise its internal guidance in time. GiantSnowman 19:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with the way things are these days, the most likely reaction by the community is "lol, lmao even, no". It shouldn't be that way, and it wasn't always that way, but from my observation the community takes a very dim view of "this group of editors on this niche topic has developed consensus procedures", and doubly so when it comes from an actual WikiProject. It's sad and I don't agree with it, but it's the WikiWorld we live in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be a bit boneheaded of us, despite having been involved in a rather tense discussion where I opposed a part of the advice page in question. There is genuine value in having certain mainstay features (such as infoboxes) of a set of articles be consistent. Sure, I don't think you could just elevate the advice page to a guideline as-is, but I think most of it is actually sound advice, and some of it is in fact very helpful (most English speakers are unaware of WP:DJURGÅRDENS).

I suppose that's a matter for another discussion though. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 09:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I'm agreeing with you (and, more or less mostly, with GS). It's just that the community as a whole, from my observation, does not like project-specific/limited guidelines, no matter how much sense they make. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Time for some boomerang restriction

Like I said at the linked previous discussion, this is again and again and again GiantSnowman abusing warnings and reverts to impose his not-MOS at all preferred style against all opposition or other opinions, claiming that anyne not following his guidance is a vandal. This is not a "nonsense edit" (summary), this isn't a vandalistic edit (User talk:Lfzdy#Career stats boxes).

Very recent similar issues with other editors include this edit, where GiantSnowman gave out a vandal warning, instead of checking whether it was indeed a correct but unsourced edit, which it of course was. Posting a level 2 warning because someone added IPA without a source seems rather heavy-handed as well. Or warning an editor for making unsourced changes when the source (Soccerway) is directly after the change.

This pattern of extremely heavy-handed patrolling of football articles goes back many years, and continues to show a complete misunderstanding of what e.g. vandalism is. Any sanction (e.g. a topic ban) or other type of restriction which may help to stop this pattern is welcome. Fram (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Support topic ban from Football for GiantSnowman. This appears to be a long-ongoing pattern of WP:OWN behavior that is causing too many headaches for others. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, as long as GiantSnowman gets the message that WikiProject standards and essays are not quite policy, and treats editors accordingly, there is no need to remove their presence from a a topic they have excelled in. This seems another of those zero to sixty ideas that ask to cripple an editor where a slap on the wrist may do to fix the concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

How many of these slap on the wrists should be given? From the 2018 discussion about his rollback of good-faith edits over a 2021 discussion about "GiantSnowman prefering style over content?" to this discussion from December 2025 where (among many other issues for which topic bans were suggested and supported by some) are the same complaints about warning editors for "vandalism" for non-vandalistic edits? Plus the above linked discussion? There may have been others, I don't know, but I don't think considering this a "zero to sixty" approach or giving another slap on the wrist is in any way correct. Fram (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

GiantSnowman enjoys editing Association Football pages and is good at it, so a ban would remove an individual with considerable institutional memory within the topic. Maybe not 0 to 60, but Snowman hasn't even responded here to this concern and already the ultimate in punishment is being suggested. Let's wait to see if this ANI thread is worrisome enough to elicit a nice response. Maybe the problem is solely in wording, "vandalism" is quite the accusation and there should be a better way to communicate with other editors. But a topic ban here would harm Wikipedia more than improve it, and GiantSnowman's clean block log indicates that compliance to the rules and regs is their normal position. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

"The ultimate in punishment" would be an enwiki ban, not a topic ban from one topic. Feel free to suggest other possible sanctions if you think a topic ban is not the right solution, but please don't act (like you first did) as this came out of the blue. As for their clean block log, have you seen their lengthy entry at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions? Fram (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

By 'ultimate' I mean restricting them from editing in their favored and knowledgeable topic. Hopefully GS's response will communicate a solution to your concern, but maybe alert their talk page that a topic ban is being discussed (major changes in subjects and possible punishments should probably require notices on talk pages). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. Fram hates me and they go through phases of trying to subject me to sanctions, it fails, they move on to another editor, then the cycle continues. I'm well aware that the WP:FOOTBALL guideline is not a community wide MOS; my concerns about this editor are wider than this (i.e. continued non-communication, despite at least 3 editors raising the issue with the editor). GiantSnowman 18:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This section is not about the one editor though (though your bully treatment of them is bad enough), but about your general pattern of dealing with editors who don't follow your rules to the letter and then get subjected to your incorrect vandalism warnings, blocks, and similar very poor treatment. Fram (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

If I'm well aware that the WP:FOOTBALL guideline is not a community wide MOS then why do you keep acting as if it is? Your OP in this thread stated which whilst not a proper MOS, is WikiProject guidance and in very wide use, so a de facto MOS which is at best wikilawyering around it with 'well it's not a REAL MOS but it might as well be'. Enough is enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I did not come here asking for a block for this editor not editing in a way I like. I came here asking for "a wider view" (i.e. help and guidance) in dealing with an editor who, I felt, had competency issues (which, in your view, they do not - fine) and who had a total lack of communication and edit summaries (which is simple fact).

If the help/guidance I receive is "their edits are fine, back off" then absolutely fine, and comments from Randy etc. are far more helpful in that regard than those of others. GiantSnowman 17:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Randy, as long as GiantSnowman gets the message that WikiProject standards and essays are not quite policy - He has "gotten the message" before. And then we come back a few weeks or months later with they edit against Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics as a request for blocking someone. This isn't the first time. If we don't put a stop to it, it won't be the last. GS knows full well that these have no standing for enforcability, but they refuse to accept that and plow onwards. Being an admin is not an excuse; having considerable institutional memory within the topic is not an excuse. WP:UNBLOCKABLES, WP:SUPERMARIO - at some point we need to stop treating some editors as more equal than others, and accept that if we'd sanction a "lesser" editor for something, a "greater" editor should get the same sanction (if not more, because they should know better). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  What sanctions are you actually proposing/supporting? GiantSnowman 17:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies, I got distracted and forgot to actually say, didn't I? Supporting a topic ban from reporting or reverting other editors for style/format issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm happy to voluntarily agree to a 'no reporting' restriction (with the exception of e.g. 3RR etc.), but the 'no revert' suggestion needs further consideration, and at the very least needs to be narrowed down to soccer stats tables only, surely? Are you suggesting that if, for example, I create an article with a stats table in format X, and it remains that way for years, and then another editor tweaks it to format Y, I cannot restore the stable version? Are you suggesting that if someone introduces something wacky into a stats table (such as a column of flags in breach of MOS:FLAGS) I cannot remove them? As ER says above, "all plausible formatting methods are equally valid" - so this type of editing should just be dealt with as any other minor content dispute between editors (i.e. taken to talk page). GiantSnowman 05:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  How about making it be a ban on making changes to pre-existing accepted styles in football articles without affirmative consensus? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  My concern with this is, how are you defining "pre-existing accepted styles", given the comments above? Are you suggesting that I cannot change X to Y but other editors can change Y to X? GiantSnowman 16:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I was thinking if other editors change Y to X then you can change it back to Y and then discuss it with them in the usual WP:BRD manner, but you can't go changing X to Y on articles where X is the status quo without affirmative consensus to do so. The "accepted" part creating an exemption for you changing X to Y when X is actually going against PaGs. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, but I don't do that anyway (as far as I am aware, feel free to correct me of course) - I only tend to make these kind of edits when someone changes Y to X on my watchlist... GiantSnowman 17:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I mean I don't really see a point in banning you from doing that, if that's what other editors intend, as I don't really see it as disruptive to revert other editors unilateral style changes. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Noted, thanks. GiantSnowman 18:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  If you mean me, then I want to be clear: I said “all plausible formatting methods” to specifically rule out formats that are against the MOS or are equivalent to vandalism. For example, if you have a field for “number of wins” inputs such as “0”, “zero”, “none”, “-“, and so forth would all be equally valid. Non-valid inputs would include things like using O instead of 0, misspelling terms, including decimal marks in places they aren’t used, or formats that are directly against the MOS. ExtantRotations (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I interpreted it as such. So, to adopt your example, my query for Bushranger, Maltazarian et al remains - why would it be permissible for some users to change 'zero' to 'none', but not allowed for me to change 'none' to 'zero'? GiantSnowman 17:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Because that’s how restrictions on Wikipedia work? For example, let’s say I get blocked from editing Disney film articles. Other people are still allowed to edit them. ExtantRotations (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose any ban but only because in his defense, the user above has still failed (despite a decade of contributions) to response to anything, despite this issue being raised multiple times. I'm generally pro-WikiProject autonomy and I even find some of the above arguments slightly suspicious, but I don't think persistently hassling someone for unofficial guidelines is productive. While I do trust WikiProjects to generally manage precise styles for projects in their domain, the persistent hounding ought to stop. At best, just edit without hounding them if its that important. Warn as sanction for WP:HOUNDING reasons and endorse stricter sanctions if the behavior continues. — Knightoftheswords 22:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

A view that this was HOUNDing is, on reflection, likely fair - although not deliberately so. GiantSnowman 17:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose ban, if the veritable Snowman agrees not to bring admin tools to bear on content/formatting disputes, and not to try enforce quasi-policies that aren't actual policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

For the avoidance of any doubt, I do not intend to use any admin tools (and indeed have not to date!), and I will not be seeking to enforce the WikiProject guidance again. I presume it's OK to notify editors, once, that the WP:FOOTBALL page exists, then they can choose to use it or not. GiantSnowman 18:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Going back a week or so, and checking user warnings given by GiantSnowman, I see (among correct warnings) things like:

• a final warning here for this change, which isn't unsourced but reflects the source already present at the changed sentence.
• An indef block for edit warring for User:Key-Tip-7521, after you (and others) reverted him (making you WP:INVOLVED, and where his last edit (which you reverted and blocked for) was this, which seems to be accurate[bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c2dzerjjyyro]. I mean, the official Chelsea site lists his position as "Defender/wing-back/midfielder", but adding this to his article is an indef block offense for an 11-edit newbie? Without even one warning for edit warring previously?
• I'm not clear what the actual point is of sending someone a level-1 vandal warning for an edit they already had self-reverted within 2 minutes, it certainly is again completely unnecessary WP:BITE behaviour and unlikely to make a potential new editor feel welcome
• Reverting and warning an IP for an edit which was correct
• Reverting a correct change with an irrelevant edit summary and giving an immediate level 3 "unsourced" warning when the source was already there

And so on. This boomerang section is not just about one instance, nor about a new problem, but about issues which have continued for years now, despite reassurances that things would change voluntarily. Fram (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Your over-reliance on databases as a 'source' is concerning, Fram. As you would know if you actually edited in this area, a database is a moveable feast - they update after matches are played, and yes they update when players change clubs. But not immediately - sometimes days later. As such, when I reverted the editors you refer to above, the information was unsourced. As for the block you mention, as you state, multiple editors had reverted this editor. I do not see myself as INVOLVED. If another admin views the block as bad, I'll accept that and they're free to unblock.

Your attempted portrayal of me is, as ever, twisted. I actively try and find sources whenever I come across editors adding unsourced content, see e.g. this, this, this as recent examples that come to mind. I am not going around reverting editors. GiantSnowman 17:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose any ban GiantSnowman is literally one of the best editors we have when it comes to WikiProject Football. Losing them would be an unfathomable loss. I will admit that Giant, you can be a bit blunt at times, but that can be fixed. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not, at a superficial glance, think that GS was right with their edits here (which is not the same as saying they were wrong with them). Nevertheless, they very much were right in asking for others to look at them here.

This has turned into Votes for Banning, and as such everybody should step back from this nonsense. Nothing good can come of this. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 17:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

They asked for help, stating "I note that others users engaged in similar conduct [...] have been blocked for the same behaviour." and labeled it a competency issue because they edited against a page which in the previous discussion had been clearly explained to GiantSnowman is NOT a MOS and has no standing: why they cotinue to enforce it (even though it isn't followed on many pages anyway) and present it as a "de facto MOS" is not clear.

But sanctions for just this issue would be overkill. The problem is that, just like many previous times, GiantSnowman shows a very problematic attitude in dealing with (mainly) newbies, way too often WP:BITEing them, labeling stuff vandalism when it isn't, blocking without warnings (and when WP:INVOLVED, and so on. They always find excuses which turn out to be very dubious (like the claim that they always look for sources, even though I listed right above the example of User:Key-Tip-7521 who made a very easily sourceable change but got blocked instead.

Either they didn't look for sources in the above cases, despite their claim, or else they don't do a very good job of it. They reverted this edit from 17 July; despite it being known since mid June.

And then "As for the block you mention, as you state, multiple editors had reverted this editor. I do not see myself as INVOLVED. " That's obviously not how WP:INVOLVED works, and an admin should know this. When you are reverting a good faith editor and then indef block them for edit warring (worse, without even a warning), then you are clearly involved, overreacting, and biting. Fram (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

As you continue to conveniently forget, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor adding the information - that is unequivocal. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution [...] Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. I do not need to justify removing unsourced content about BLPs. GiantSnowman 19:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Strawman argument much? You were the one claiming that you look for sources but none were available, which is false. And you are the one falsely accusing editirs of vandalism, biting or even blocking them, for spurious reasons. Wp:burden doesn´t justify your continued very poor, policy-violating behaviour towards towards those editors. Fram (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Mohammedraashid123 altering quotations

Mohammedraashid123 (talk · contribs) is doing a lot of copyediting in small edits. Normally fine, but it seems that they are not paying attention to whether or not the text they are changing are direct quotations - including the quotation parameters of citation templates. Some examples from today: , , , there are plenty more in their contribs. They are not responsive to talk page messages and just keep on going. Please consider doing something about this, they are editing at a pretty rapid clip. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Many of these quotes are from non-online books, so they are hard to verify. But I did find an online item for one of their changes at supernatural and confirmed that the quote was correct and they changed it to be incorrect. That edit was after several warnings on their talkpage and the notice about this ANI item. I have therefore p-blocked them from mainspace for 24 hours to stop the disruption. Maybe that will even get them to read their talkpage and/or join us here. I rolled back thir edits to that page and also Parapsychology. DMacks (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Their entire tenure here is 7+ months of robotic changes to suit some personal grammar or style rules, some of which align with actual English and our MOS but many not (and as MrOllie notes, many are blatantly inappropriate regardless), and repeated reader-visible breakage of templates and images. They've had a miles warnings and no evidence of interaction with them. Although I solved the acute problem, I would not object to a longer block. DMacks (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Upon expiration of that block, they immediately returned to the same behaviors, including altering a cited quote to be not-what-the-cite-says, grammar changes that are as often wrong or not-better as they are right. We don't have time for that. Indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Stormm001 – Consistent unsourced additions & original research

Stormm001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Stormm001 continues to make unreferenced/unsupported by RS changes to the weapons used in various attacks (or just unreferenced changes in general). They have been warned by various editors to stop, yet they continue to do so. Stormm001 appears to believe that they are allowed to identify weapons by eye even though they have been told numerous times they cannot do that. This is not new behavior, it is chronic behavior stretching back since when they made the account.

Warning:

• 1) by Shearonink
• 2) by Shearonink
• 3) by Shearonink
• 4) by Shearonink
• 5) by MIDI
• 6) by Adolphus79
• 7) by Adolphus76
• 8) by yours truly
• 9) by yours truly
• 10) by yours truly
• 11) by yours truly
• 12) by Adolphus79

Response:

• 1) No response
• 2)
• 3) No response
• 4) No response
• 5)
• 6)
• 7) No response
• 8)
• 9) No response
• 10) No response
• 11)
• 12)

What triggered this report was Stormm001 showing that they have not learned a single thing from the numerous warnings, and these suspicious edits by a temp account and Stormm001 in conjunction at 2026 Twin Falls shooting where once again, unreferenced weapons were added. Now it is entirely possible this temp account was not related to Stormm001, their worsening of an already unsupported weapon identification today indicates they have not learned. Raskuly 🐰 17:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The Twin Falls one wasn’t me; it was there before as “Palmetto State Arms”. All I did was put in the Wikipedia page as “Palmetto State Armory”. I should’ve left that one alone. I apologize. Stormm001 (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Twin_Falls_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1367346379 This proves that it was not me. All I did was add the Wikipedia page. That’s it. I am trying to be a better Wikipedia editor who will only add information with sources. Stormm001 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You or not, it needs to be made clear that your adherence to our rules around original research and referenced content is not optional. You've been lucky not to be brought to this page earlier for it since you've been violating this since at least September 2024. Raskuly 🐰 21:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I am trying to be more adherent to the rules around original research. If I’m not sure if the sources confirm the details, I leave it alone. I’m trying to no longer “violate” any rules and I am proving that by making my future edits with sources to back them up. Stormm001 (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you ask of me? A ban for a month? Stormm001 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm only asking that this AN/I makes it clear to you for real this time that these are not optional things to do. Time will tell. You've written before you'll try to be better. Raskuly 🐰 21:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem with ANI is that it is run almost entirely by emotion rather than evidence and logic. I just hope that my side of the story is heard. Stormm001 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

So are you going to tell it? Morwen (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you want me to say specifically? Stormm001 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You say that If I'm not sure if the sources confirm the details, I leave it alone. Yet there are diffs here that suggest a different tale. If you have an explanation as to this dissonance between the two versions of events, it would be in your interest to speak up. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Provide examples? Stormm001 (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

There are a dozen example provided at the start of this discussion, only one of which you've made any attempt to address. Your talk page is full of warnings in which you give little indication of understanding what the issue is. I'm sorry, but reviewing your edits, I don't get the impression that you have absorbed any of the policies and guidelines for which you were given links; these are literally the same problems going back two years.

There was another very specific weapon identification that I can't verify in a source just before this very discussion . Do you have the source that identifies the specific Ruger model rather than simply the general description of the Ruger gun reported by the VPC? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

“Donald R. Fiessinger bought 65 handguns from the gun store over a period of two years, and was advertising them for sale in newspapers.”

The Mark JI has been manufactured since 1982.

https://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990704.htm Stormm001 (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

That does not specify that he bought a MK II or a Mark JI. It could have been an older model like the MK I Target. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I went back to the page & removed it. Stormm001 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This link says nothing but "Ruger .22 pistol" not the specific model, and that was already listed on the article. If the source doesn't connect the dots, then we absolutely don't. Between this and the fact that you have continued to do this in the Seth Privacky article after saying you agreed to no longer do this, I am unconvinced you understand what the problem is in a meaningful way. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I made a mistake, I corrected it, can you drop it please. Stormm001 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

We can't just drop it since it appears to be a continuing problem as seen below. If we don't have a basis to think that you understand the issue, then we have to start talking about things like a topic ban from gun models at a minimum. This can't keep happening. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think even AN/I will agree with you on that one. Stormm001 (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If you continue to show you don't understand the issue, then what CoffeeCrumbs wrote will be discussed. It is not an absurd suggestion. Raskuly 🐰 06:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t understand because I have autism. I’m learning as I go. Stormm001 (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m really trying to have a better understanding of what/what not to do on Wikipedia Stormm001 (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I OPPOSE Stormm001 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Demonstrate that you understand the issue here and with your future contributions. You are just as accountable for your actions as anyone else on Wikipedia. Whether or not you oppose a potential discussion about a topic ban when you are subject to that discussion is irrelevant. Please don't spam the discussion, I went through multiple revisions of my reply before it was posted and you made two additional replies to the same comment during that short time frame. Raskuly 🐰 06:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Understood. What would you like me to demonstrate? That identification of firearms by sight & not by identification of make/model described by source will not be accepted? I can accept that fact. Stormm001 (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you know why it isn't acceptable to identify weapons using your own personal knowledge? Personally, I'd like you to revisit your conversation below with PARAKANYAA. This specific chain of replies was started by CoffeeCrumbs because of the issues with your response to PARAKANYAA where you don't seem to understand what the issue is with your edit to the Seth Privacky article.

You can't name a specific type of gun, like a Ruger Standard, unless you have reliable sources which identify it that way. It is basic WP:VERIFIABILITY. If the source doesn't say it is a Ruger Standard, then you shouldn't write it is a Ruger Standard even if you believe it to be true. If you know what kind of weapon Privacky used because of your knowledge of firearms, awesome, but until you find a reliable source that corroborates that you can't use your knowledge to add that information to an article. Sometimes no sources exist that verify what you believe to be true, and that sucks, but it is what it is. You just get it as close to the truth as you verifiably can.

I hope you understand this isn't to say that it cannot possibly have been a Ruger Standard that was used, because of my own research trying to find potential alternatives for a .22 caliber Ruger that would be available at the time of the murder I only found revolvers. Based on what I could find, you're probably right about the weapon identification. The MLive source says "pistol" specifically, so you might think that is good enough to say it was a Ruger Standard, but it isn't. The other two sources from The Michigan Daily and CBS News don't even say what kind of gun other than a .22 caliber Ruger. In short, the Ruger Standard identification just needs verification. Raskuly 🐰 07:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Ruger Standard (the LITERAL title of the Wikipedia page, I have no control over that fact)

I wrote it as “.22 Ruger”, NOT “.22 Ruger Standard. Stormm001 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

No, you would not call it a Ruger Standard just because there's a Wiki page that says Ruger Standard. That's an article for a specific model of Ruger; there's not enough information provided to link to a specific model. If a source isn't specific, neither are we.

If a news article says "Joe Schmo collided with the victim in a 1980s Ford sedan," we don't wikilink to a Ford Taurus or Ford Tempo just because there's no 1980s Ford sedan article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you have previous experience with AN/I? I only see that PARAKANYAA brought you up at AN3 for edit warring, but it was withdrawn. Raskuly 🐰 22:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Not really. Since he withdrew it and scolded me with a warning, I’ve been more cautious since. Stormm001 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

It was an interesting take to have without previous experience. I mean, it's an interesting take regardless. Raskuly 🐰 23:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, when it comes to editing Wikipedia pages, I’m basically learning as I go. Stormm001 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

And two years after it was withdrawn, less than 2 months ago, you did the exact same thing again, on the same page Talk:Waikino school shooting . What, did you think 2 years changed the situation? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The link said the exact make/model but since it was from a website to a podcast, you wouldn’t allow it. I double checked to see if it was allowed to have a podcast as a source and it said yes, but you said no, so after a second time, I decided not to risk doing it a 3rd time. Stormm001 (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Certain reliable podcasts are reliable sources, random true crime ones from people with no credentials are not. Further, the podcast source didn't even say what you added. The podcast says "Colt .32 calibre automatic pistol". You added ".32-calibre Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammerless". Which is not what the source says. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

That’s because the Colt 1903 was the ONLY .32-caliber made by Colt at that time period. Also, it was the only source that confirmed the ID of the weapon, but because it was from a “random podcast”, it doesn’t count. Stormm001 (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

And that is original research!

Yes. Because that is not reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

And now, today, you do it again . PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

[13] https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2008/11/a_timeline_of_the_privacky_mur.html

”12:30 p.m.: Privacky goes upstairs to his father's closet, grabs his dad's .22-caliber pistol, inserts the clip and goes downstairs, hiding the pistol behind his back.” Stormm001 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It’s already in link [13] on the Wikipedia page. There’s already a source confirming it’s a semi-automatic when it says “clip” (it’s actually box magazine). You get way ahead of yourself. Stormm001 (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

You added that it was a Ruger Standard. Where does it say that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

OMG, that’s the LITERAL title of the Wikipedia page (they crammed the MK II, MK III & MK IV in to the same page to make things simpler since they are the same platform); I have no control over that fact. The Ruger started as the “Standard” before it was renamed the MK I, then the MK II in 1982, then the MK III in 2004 & then the MK IV in 2016. Stormm001 (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

What source do you have that it was a Ruger Standard or an MK II, MK III, or MK IV? The source says .22-caliber. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Seriously? Stormm001 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Where are you getting this information? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This argument is getting silly. Stormm001 (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so at all. Not everyone knows anything about guns. Where did you get that information? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-nightmare-in-muskegon/ Stormm001 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

That says "22-caliber Ruger". Does not say what you added. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Stormm001, can we get an explicit confirmation that you'll stop identifying weapons by eye? I see an implicit one earlier, but not an explicit one. Do you understand why we don't allow that? grapesurgeon (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Because identifying weapons by eye sight does not count? The only a reliable source confirming the ID of the weapon does count? Stormm001 (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

More or less; you cannot include personal observations that are non-obvious. WP:BLUESKY is the standard. Many people cannot identify weapons on sight so hard to verify info like that; that's why we rely on sourcing. This isn't just true for weapons, it's true for most things on Wikipedia; use sourcing grapesurgeon (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok then. I agree. I Understand. Stormm001 (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Can I ping previously noted editors who warned Stormm001 about this behavior previously? It doesn't have to be here, it can be on their talk pages. They may want to be aware of it. I sense that the conversation is coming to a close, so that is a factor in why I'm asking. Raskuly 🐰 03:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Why do you want to do that? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 05:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I already wrote why? Because they may want to be aware that this AN/I happened. Raskuly 🐰 05:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging editors who "may want to be aware" this discussion happened is ill-advisable at best, and WP:CANVASSING at worst. I'd suggest not. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sharkriderx persistent refusal to use edit summaries on huge number of small edits

Concerning Sharkriderx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Despite two notices on their talk page about not using edit summaries (the first one which was met with a seemingly hostile response of What Is Wrong With You??), they are persistently making large numbers of small changes to articles about Massachusetts highway routes without explanation. This sometimes spans a largely number of edits - for example, they made 22 unexplained small edits to Interstate 495 (Massachusetts) over the last 2 weeks. Their edits largely seem to concern exit lists on those highway articles, and given the sheer volume and refusal to explain, is difficult to verify.

Their editing behavior (small changes to highway exit list info) also matches up with the behavior of several past temporary and IP accounts such as ~2025-36226-74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2600:1702:6DDB:2000:CCB:BA83:86ED:7EC4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), among others. 4300streetcar (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I've pblocked them from articles and explained why. Fences&Windows 16:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Long-term misinformation/bias editing by User:Amigao

• Amigao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• People's Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user contributed a substantial part of the "Reactions" section on the People's Daily page, which contains some serious allegations. This came to my attention when the user went to great lengths to gatekeep the section and prevent important context from being added (See the talk page). During the process, I fact-checked some of the most sensational claims, and the results are highly concerning. Due to the subtle and hard-to-detect nature of this misinformation campaign, I am sharing some of my findings below, with the first two cases drawn partially from my initial fact-checking posts on the talk page.

1.

I just randomly checked one piece of info in the section People's Daily#Reactions out of curiosity: "In November 2020, the People's Daily published a claim that COVID-19 was 'imported' into China."

What a rabbit hole. To begin with, none of the four sources links to the original article, which is unlucky for my spontaneous factchecking. Of the four sources, three are news reports and one an opinion piece, but none contains a direct quote from People's Daily claiming the Covid origins as a matter of fact. The closest quote is a Facebook post by the paper that begins with "#COVID19 did not start in central China's Wuhan but may come through imported frozen food and packaging: experts."

After some digging, I found People's Daily's original post. The relevant passage reads: "'Wuhan was where the coronavirus was first detected but it was not where it originated,' Zeng Guang, former chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told an online academic conference on Nov 19. Wu Zunyou, the CDC’s present chief epidemiologist, also gave a similar judgment recently, saying the pathogen could have come into China through imported frozen seafood or meat products and their packaging, reported the South China Morning Post."

Turns out People's Daily is not the real source; it was quoting SCMP, but none of the English media mentioned this. So I found the SCMP article, and it was also summarising, rather than interviewing the two experts, who had made their statements on unrelated occassions. The FT, one of the Wikipedia sources, attributed Wu's comments to an interview by The Beijing News, which is incorrect. I found out the actual source is an interview by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, titled "Interview with Wu Zunyou of China CDC: The Cold Chain Must Not Become a Weak Link in Pandemic Prevention and Control." Did Wu really say COVID-19 was imported into China? Yes, but in a very different context.

The interview concerns domestic COVID control measures during China's zero-COVID period. Here's the relevant part:

Reporter: During the course of pandemic prevention and control, how did the cold chain segment gradually draw the attention of relevant departments? Which discoveries played a positive role in controlling the pandemic?

Wu Zunyou: It was the outbreak at the Xinfadi Market in Beijing that first brought the cold chain to the attention of relevant authorities. Through the analysis of the Xinfadi COVID-19 outbreak, it was found that cases were primarily concentrated in the aquatic product business area, which was also the area where the environment was most severely contaminated by the coronavirus. These findings suggested that the Beijing Xinfadi outbreak might be linked to seafood. At the same time, it was also observed that the outbreak was not severe in areas handling live fish and other ambient-temperature aquatic products.

Looking back further at the early stage of the outbreak in Wuhan at the beginning of the year, patients at the Huanan Seafood Market were also mainly concentrated in the frozen seafood area. All these clues pointed to imported seafood transported via cold chain as the potential source of the outbreak. Following this line of investigation, it was indeed discovered that imported seafood from multiple countries had been contaminated by the coronavirus. [...]

The mystery solved: Wu was talking about how the apparent origins of the Xinfadi outbreak, the most notorious during China's zero-COVID period, could be the imported frozen seafood. The interview never mentions any conspiracy theory.

The chain of attribution, then, runs: Wu Zunyou (talking about Xinfadi outbreak) → SCMP (summarizing two experts, misleadingly put together)→ People's Daily (quoting SCMP) → Western media (misattribution) → Wikipedia (smh).

2.

Well, I picked another claim from People's Daily#Reactions to fact-check: "In January 2021, the People's Daily inaccurately attributed deaths in Norway to the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine."

The single citation is a Quartz article, which reads: "Over the past week, major propaganda outlets including Xinhua, People's Daily, and China Daily have all published articles about the deaths of elderly shot recipients in Norway, and accused English-language media of downplaying the deaths even though multiple outlets carried reports of them."

Some links in the Quartz piece have died, but the People's Daily link still works. It is actually a Xinhua report (the same one as the dead Xinhua link? Don't know). It begins: "A vaccine adviser to the Australian government said that the country will likely go ahead with the Pfizer vaccine despite recipients dying in Norway." There's nothing in the piece to verify if it accused English-language media of anything, but does the bold part warrant the characterisation by Wikipedia?

For comparison, I checked out how Australian media reported. Two days before the Xinhua report, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported: "Norway to continue using Pfizer's COVID vaccine despite elderly deaths." One day before, The Age reported: "A leading adviser to the federal government says it is likely Australia will push ahead with vaccinating elderly people with the Pfizer vaccine despite reports recipients had died in Norway."

3.

Another claim about the People's Daily stated that the virus had "multiple origins," in a context clearly implying that the paper was peddling conspiracy theory that the virus originated in other countries. In fact, the article was not from People's Daily, nor was it an original claim by the media or reporter. Instead, it was a Global Times report about a scientific paper, since published by Nature, suggesting the Huanan seafood market may not be the origin of the virus, a claim unrelated to country of origin or conspiracy theories.

While I haven't examined everything this user has posted across Wikipedia, given their obvious axe to grind, it is likely that more instances exist. Such behavior is all the more problematic and ironic because it was conducted under the user's banner of fighting "information warfare," even though the user turned out to be perpetuating the very practices they claimed to combat. Enrico Chou (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Enrico Chou:

Could you possibly write

• a one sentence summary of what you see as the problem here?

and

• a one sentence summary what your preferred resolution to the problem would be?

Thank you. ---10:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I became aware of this in the context that I was monitoring an article China–Philippines relations where the user in discussion had detected that another user was probably using a LLM despite claiming not too. I have strong suspicions that this user is correct but that for an administrator to sort out and they are welcome to contact me to understand my suspicions about a third party. On reviewing the issue raised here I wonder if the very human failing of failing to pursue to original sources when you have a PoV unrecognised by yourself is the sole issue. ChaseKiwi (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The COVID conspiracy sourcing issue was raised with Amigao as far back as November 2020 and they stridently stood by their edit . Perusal of Amigao's user talk page archives will show that there have been sporadic NPOV concerns regarding them and China going back over most of their time on the project. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Shirt58. The problem is that the user has repeatedly attributed claims to People's Daily that either aren't from PD at all, or distort what PD (quoting other outlets and experts) actually said, creating an impression that PD is pushing COVID-origin conspiracy theories. The preferred resolution, in short term, would be to remove the unsupported and distorted claims currently in the article. Long term, given multiple editors have raised concerns about this user's NPOV, I'd support a broader review of their edit history, and sanctions if a pattern of misrepresentation in China-related topics is confirmed.

ChaseKiwi. I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting it's my personal "POV" that this user has been attributing non-PD articles to PD? If your point is that they simply made an honest mistake by not carefully checking the original sources, I'd suggest looking at the talk page, where they've carefully and stubbornly blocked, or hidden in fine print, any critical but inconvenient details from that section, in order to push a crude, one-sided narrative. That should put to rest any notion that this was mere carelessness. Enrico Chou (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

If you look at Amigao's block log you'll see the constituent issues at play: Amigao is quite willing to edit-war in order to maintain edits which are often quite careless with sources. This carelessness is derived from what appears to be ideological commitments against the PRC. That they've not faced steeper sanctions across a career of being an account that is virtually an SPA with steep RGW tendencies seems to be because most of the people who have logged complaints on the matter were themselves not the best at neutral editing. Still I think Amigao would benefit greatly from editing topics other than modern China. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the other problem that has prevented a clear view of this issue is that much of Amigao's POV pushing consists of very small edits that, in agregate, have an out-sized effect. For instance there is this which, if I had any confidence that Amigao would look for a citation, would not attract much attention. But Amigao generally just circles back and deletes their CN tagged comments on future edits. Furthermore putting a CN tag on something that is virtually WP:SKYBLUE Chinese history is kind of problematic. For the record it took me 4 minutes and 35 seconds from opening Wikipedia library to finding a citation that confirms this uncontroversial fact. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Simonm223, for digging into the user's history. It reminds me of my only earlier experience with this user (). There appears to be a pattern for the user to preserve poorly-sourced claims by deliberately keeping primary sources out. Not only does the user avoid citing primary sources, but they also repeatedly instigate edit-warring when other editors cite or use primary sources to fact-check. In both of my experiences with the user, I've had to track down the original Chinese sources behind these allegations myself to verify whether the events described in those secondhand English sources actually occurred, and when I found that the events were not supported, the user typically argued that primary sources were somehow uncitable, claiming that the primary Chinese-language sources could not represent themselves as well as the secondhand English-language sources. By suppressing the Chinese sources, the user has effectively exploited the language barrier to limit or block meaningful fact-checking, withholding the most direct evidence available. The underlying principle that nothing is real unless it's recorded in English is also problematic, especially when the Chinese sources are the primary, firsthand references for many of the China-related topics Amigao specifically targets, and when the English-language coverage is obviously defective or incomplete to anyone who can read Chinese. This is a direct violation of WP:PRIMARY. Enrico Chou (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

No, secondary sources are needed for reception of a topic. We shouldn't be using primary sources to contradict secondary sources, because that is OR, elevating our own interpretations of primary sources over those of secondary sources. Fences&Windows 20:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Secondary sources > primary sources. Doesn't matter the language. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a pile-on against Amigao, but the edits about People's Daily date back to 2020, when claims about Chinese misinformation were rife in Western media, and one of their blocks was in 2020 for removing RT, a deprecated source. The OP raised this after another content dispute in June, so if anyone is axe-grinding it's the OP. Fences&Windows 20:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Fences&Windows, I'd suggest looking further into the primary sources in question and addressing the facts, not making strange claims about my motives. Neither sources involves "interpretation" as you claimed; both are about whether the described event happened at all. If you read through the content dispute from June, which was simply an edit war not started by me, you'll see it's the same issue I raised here, and it's how I found out about the other similar cases, as I explained in the first place. So there's no axe to grind on my end. After third-party intervention in that June dispute, the problem I'd pointed out, a missing piece of context, was eventually added, which supports rather than undermines the point I'm making. Enrico Chou (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

"...the edits about People's Daily date back to 2020, when claims about Chinese misinformation were rife in Western media, and one of their blocks was in 2020 for removing RT, a deprecated source."

And needless to say, this has nothing to do with the truth value of what we're talking about, which can be objectively verified. Even when judged against the background of a hostile Western media, Amigao's exaggeration and distortion are still unwarranted, and there is nothing to brag about if your argument is that rampant Western media bias against China in 2020 resulted in inaccurate coverage that misled the editor. If you want to defend why the claims are factually true and should remain in Wikipedia, you should prove my fact-checking is defective instead of engaging in character assassination. Enrico Chou (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you POV pushing on the record of Chinese state media on COVID-19 by using the trope of Western bias, itself a feature of state media discourse? There's been detailed analyses of how the CCP used People's Daily in their messaging. See and . Fences&Windows 21:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You're free to add your own allegations and prove People's Daily's actions by citing other sources. I'm merely sharing what I found, and I have zero interest in engaging with your meaningless, and frankly paranoid, attacks. Enrico Chou (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

And you're free to talk yourself into a WP:BOOMERANG. which you're doing a very good job of here so far. Don't make further personal attacks on other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

It's paranoid that you're POV pushing? Hardly. What you found wasn't an analysis of secondary sources, but your own attempt to discredit their reporting with your own OR analysis. That's rightly subject to scrutiny. Another academic source: . Fences&Windows 21:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, I actually encourage you to update the section with better sources if you want to, because the current version is very poor. Sentences like, "In February 2020, the People's Daily published an article stating that the novel coronavirus 'did not necessarily originate in China'" have no place there, because the quote can't be found in the original article at all, and the cited Western media outlets can't even attribute the offending articles to the correct state media outlet. It's pointless to defend such a poorly sourced section. If you care about media reliability, you should start with yourself by not defending misinformation like that. And I actually have far too much media literacy in this area to need a lecture on what Chinese state media is. Enrico Chou (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Vandalism

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

---

Username: ~2026-38933-45

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argentina%E2%80%93Egypt_relations&diff=1363293344&oldid=1353060357

Given that this user has already stopped vandalizing and does not appear likely to vandalize the encyclopedia in the future, this won't be reported under the vandalism noticeboard.

What requires attention here is this specific diff. It starts off by innocuously joking that the FIFA has diplomatic relationship with Egypt and that "VARgentina" had an embassy in Cairo, before stating that Egypt has an embassy in Tel Aviv. The association between actions done by FIFA and Argentina with Israel does not reflect legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. It's much more likely to be antisemitic in intent, suggesting that Israel has control over the FIFA that far exceeds its actual power as a country or otherwise suggesting that Israel has an interest in controlling the FIFA when it does not. The joke consequently reflects antisemitic tropes of Jewish power and influence but replacing Jews as a whole with Israel. ~2026-42791-66 (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

That's rather basic vandalism and has already been reverted, what else do you want anyone here to do? Vandalism of one piped link is nowhere close to approaching "antisemitic intent". Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Luca Vendrame-related vandalism and sockpuppetry (again)

• ~2026-42491-96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Feliz763 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luca Vendrame/Archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1228#Vandalism, 3RR and possible sockpuppetry for more context. This time, the disruption is being focused at Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, with persistent edits adding unsourced, fake information coupled with unjustified blankings of sourced content (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4). Behaviour and modus operandi is the exact same as previously reported, so it's a clear case of WP:DUCK. Since this person uses multiple IP accounts combined with user accounts from time to time, a block could temporarily work for this specific stance but would not solve the long-term trend of disruption, as they always keep coming back again despite repeated blocks. I have requested the article to be semi-protected at WP:RPP/I (), but that seems to be taking some time to be addressed. Impru20^talk 13:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

They are now engaging in the article from a recently-created WP:SPA (diff; has been added to the report). User has been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luca Vendrame as well. This is an obvious WP:SOCK. Impru20^talk 16:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Issue now solved, with both sock accounts having been blocked and the page protected against future disruption. Discussion can be closed. Impru20^talk 09:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism with bogus CSD request

International Clown Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP user associated with ~2026-42779-63 (talk · contribs) is vandalizing this article with bogus CSD requests (per A11) and White supremacy-related imagery. Most recent vandal attempt. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, they claimed the holiday is fake and added fake information about coulrophobia. See also the talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I support, although should been a WP:AIV. Jako96 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, I opened MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list#Protected_edit_request_on_3_August_2026 for several images used during the vandalism. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I've now blocked this account for vandalism. That is an addition to the three associated IPs I had already blocked for vandalizing the same page during the past few days. If it continues, this may require a range block. In the meantime, they are being blocked one at a time. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

User A bag of many boiled potatoes

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

---

• A bag of many boiled potatoes (talk · contribs)
• User_talk:A_bag_of_many_boiled_potatoes#July_2026
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#"Gaza_genocide"_in_BLP_articles

I noticed this editor has been edit-warring to change "Gaza war" to "Gaza genocide" in Patricia Heaton, not providing any explanation in the edit summaries or elsewhere. The editor has made similar edits elsewhere: .

After looking, I found more of the same in Louis Mosley, Michael McFaul, and Abelardo de la Espriella. I expect there are more. Is there any way to easily find the overlap of this editor's edits and Special:WhatLinksHere/Gaza_genocide to look further?

The editor has also been spamming "Zionist" categories into BLP articles without explanation and without any supporting content in those articles: as well as other categories: .

The editor has been previously given semi-related warning here to Spencer Pratt, for adding BLP-violating content. They subsequently added other such content twice more to the article.

While the editor hasn't been given much in the way of warnings, an editor at the BLPN discussion recommended a report here. - Hipal (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You asked if they'd stop and they said yes. Why then raise this three days later when they've not resumed? Fences&Windows 16:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Skysmith does nothing but create questionable redirects

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

This isn't an urgent incident, but it does appear to be a chronic, intractable problem. This editor has done nothing for the past year except create redirects. The editor appears every few weeks and creates large batches of redirects, and then hibernates, and then wakes up from hibernation and creates more redirects. The user talk page shows mostly notices of discussions at RFD. Their contribution history shows that they do not respond to the RFD nominations (or to anything).

I haven't tried to research the redirects in detail, but the history speaks for itself. I encountered a redirect from Sarwa to San people, but Sarwa does not appear in that article except as a part of words such as Basarwa, so a useless redirect.

I recommend a partial block from article space to stop further redirect creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you could have tried talking to them first. This is a veteran account, editing since 2003. Since 2006, they've maintained various lists of potential/missing articles, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Skysmith&namespace=2&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Skysmith's list of missing articles. I believe that's where most of the redirects are coming from. It's a stretch to say all their redirects are useless - I don't think we're in User:Neelix territory. Fences&Windows 19:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding what you said about "Sarwa": per WP:RDR, presence of that term in the article itself is not necessarily a requirement for a redirect. A little bit of research and you will find that Sarwa has been an ethnonym for the San People (see here), although it does seem to be less common. There does seem to be quite a lot of niche redirects created by the user that are too uncommon and might fall under clause 8 of when to delete a redirect, but it doesn't look like something that was done in bad faith, or at the least, not something that warrants a block without direct discussion. Have you tried talking to them first? asoundd 01:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• I have created redirect when I think it is relevant. I am not that active in Wikipedia at times any more (due to various reasons) even if I did started number of articles before. No doubt there are mistakes there and I do not take part of the discussions because I take them as part of Wikipedia's process of correcting faulty material. It is better when people who know more about the subject that me see if there is better redirect, better way or maybe see potential article material. Other people have checked my lists of missing topics and created other redirects and pointed out when the topic is already handled elsewhere. I welcome that and the fact that others help with those pages. And the last I checked, majority of the redirects have been relevant. - Skysmith (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Malak Ahmad Shah Burki

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

---

Malak Ahmad Shah Burki (talk · contribs) is an evident sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khatirahmadburki0555, popped up after the block of sockmaster. Sock investigations may take time, this account continues cluleess edits. Probably both must be indef-blocked per WP:Competence is acquired. They do not talk in talk pages. --Altenmann >talk 19:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry. Borgenland (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Honeydewdrop

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

---

User:Honeydewdrop has been thrice warned to stop his vandalism when no content was removed as he is blindly doing it and claiming "troll" in his third removal edit summary. He is a new editor who is not familiar here and apparently needs to be told.

I have also posted in talk about the other issue (which also blanket removed everything. Now I have merely tagged it as disputed till consensus.Psephguru (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I blocked Honeydewdrop 31 hours for edit warring, and Psephguru 2 weeks, to match their last block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

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

User:FlightTime

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

From what I have experienced and seen through this person's editing history, is a pattern of reverting edits with flawed and wrong justifications, such as claiming to revert changes for being "unexplained/unsourced" when in fact, no such thing has happened. This person has even admitted they went to the effort of reverting an edit which fixed a very simple typo on incorrect grounds (claiming they had changed the content of the article when nothing had occured). The account had to explain to him why he was wrong and this user has an account which is 18 years old. Surely, he would go to such efforts to undo people's genuinely good edits on a whim? I will admit to being mean to him previously and that was unnecessary, but you cannot simply hide behind claims of "harassment" and "someone is being mean to me" to not accept accountability for your mistakes. I've even explained to him why he was not correct to accuse of making a wrong edit to Category:Beauty and the Beast], but clearly he is not prepared to have an actual debate or provide an explanation. His talk page also contains recent accusations of edit warring, which is very concerning to read to say the least. Wikipedia editors are supposed to have adult attitudes and actually explain their actions. ~2026-40617-46 (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs? (The single one in your report goes to a warning that another editor in a content dispute with FlightTime left on FT's talk page and doesn't seem to have anything to do with your claim.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have clearly given an incorrect revision link. If you simply read this, you will see the comment about the incorrect reverting of a typo fix and the warning about edit warring was written here, but I don't know who gave that warning to begin with, but still, it's concerning and needs looking into.

I will confess I was rather hostile towards this user, which I will apologise for but he should not be making false statements about the edits of others, such as this one in which he claims I have not referenced or explained the change, which I very clearly did (after I read the main article in question). ~2026-40617-46 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

That diff about the typo doesn't show much. FlightTime made a mistake and apologized and fixed it. We all make mistakes. Recognizing them and fixing them is what we expect editors to do.

That "warning" about edit warring was from the editor who was also engaged in that edit war. Schazjmd (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You talk about the other user being engaged in an edit war with him, but it's always a two-way street. Both parties are usually to blame.

Why should someone have to explain to him that fixing typos is not a bad thing? Does he purposefully spend the hours of his day looking for spurious reasons to revert random edits? ~2026-40617-46 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, yes of course people make errors from time to time, but why did he claim I had made a wrong edit about the Beauty and the Beast? Did he actually read the article in question or do any research? ~2026-40617-46 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I've notified FlightTime of this discussion since it doesn't appear that you did so. Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I actually tried to inform this editor that he wrong to revert my edit about the Beauty and the Beast, but he simply removed it from his talk page because he clearly did not want to respond. ~2026-40617-46 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you @Schazjmd: I'll keep an eye on it. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@FlightTime, could you respond to the TA about this revert? They attempted to discuss it on your talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I have nothing more than the edit summary. If I am wrong then revert me. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

(ec) I'm confused. Your edit summary was "Unsourced, unexplained", but there was an explanation in their edit summary. Schazjmd (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, you were wrong, proving my point. You clearly did not do your research about the topic at hand or have an opinion about it; that says a lot. ~2026-40617-46 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I apologize, I was mistaken, I thought I reverted myself. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Pauseypaul

On 22 September 2025, I let this user know that their edit to Isobel Goodwin had a few small errors. Their response was unexpected and aggressive as I felt I had been polite

A few days ago, we got into an argument over my recent additions to the 2026-27 Aston Villa W.F.C. season article. I must admit I don't come off well, however they accused me of stalking them . I haven't been stalking them for 10 months, we both edit in the UK women's football space and so it's natural that we find each other's edits. Because of this, I took a 4 day wikibreak.

This is not the first time this has happened. They were aggressive responding to Kingsif and despite the fact the argument was over and I had apologized, they mention me here (describing me as a Medrano Bean Stalker, I don't know what the bean part means but Medrano is Spanish to improve) and once again call me a stalker here

I admit that I argued with Pauseypaul and was extremely rude to them. However, this behaviour of making snide comments in edit summaries is making me extremely uncomfortable. I would rather we clear up any fight we have and move on.

No matter what the outcome of the ANI is, I have decided that after it's over, I am taking a long, indefinite break from Wikipedia for my mental health. The fact that I snapped at someone and was so mean about it shows that I need a long break. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, RossEvans19,

What sort of outcome are you seeking from filing this complaint? Wikipedia is a collaborative writing project and disputes between editors is very common. Unless an editor works in a tiny niche area that no one else works in, I think we all have another editor or two we clash with. I think it would be best if you both let go of the discussion from September 2025 and focused on content, not old interactions. If you are serious about taking a WikiBreak, that sounds like it might be good for you for you both.

When I was a novice editor, there was an editor who I constanly clashed with. I wouldn't say we stalked each other but we did seem to have the same editing interests. Any way, I stopped editing Wikipedia, then returned in six months and we both had moved on. We had other things on our minds and never had another dispute. I'm not advising you to take such a long break but often these interpersonal disputes clear up if you just put some distance between you and the other editor. You can also do this by avoiding editing the same articles but it sounds like you might have identical editing interests so that would be a challenge.

I'm not hopeful that ANI will provide an instant solution for you. Often complaints at ANI just causes the arguments to move from User talk pages to a much more public noticeboard with other editors jumping in which is usually unhelpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I was seeking two outcomes - for Pauseypaul and me to put whatever differences we have behind us, and for Pauseypaul to not be so defensive when people offer constructive criticism. Unfortunately, we both edit in exactly the same space (various clubs in the Women's Super League) so it would be a challenge.

Sadly, I think I have to agree with you. ANI will most likely just increase any argument we had previously. I think I was just sick of being pushed around in my life and wanted to do something about it. Thanks for your response. What should we do instead? RossEvans19 (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually, hang on, let me be more clear. I want Pauseypaul to stop mentioning me in their edit summaries, their subpages, their draft works, anything. RossEvans19 (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Pauseypaul (talk · contribs) was brought to ANI by Kingsif (talk · contribs) back in 2023, where they faced similar accusations of melodramatic incivility. The dispute went nowhere, partially from what I can tell since in addition to Kingsif's somewhat long timeline of events, Pauseypaul then erected the Tsar of all the wp:TEXTWALLs, even more strangely coupled with a Tsarina of all textwalls that was just a copied-and-pasted version of the previous text but with pipes as gaps between paragraphs for an easier read, which had to be hatted by an IP. IMO, that significantly decreased interest to actually engage from other editors, but a weak consensus formed that she was very uncivil and incoherent and should stop. Looking at her user and talk pages alone, she doesn't seem to have stopped, and additionally (based on her interactions with Kingsif and Ross) seems to have developed conspiratorial delusions about being stalked (which are bogus btw). Support interaction ban between the two at minimum and in actuallity issue block for WP:CIR and civility reasons. — Knightoftheswords 01:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Knightoftheswords with an interaction ban. RossEvans19 (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

(1) A few small errors normally means more than one, not merely the word ‘’’On’’’ before a date! On 19 September 2025. Personally I felt there was absolutely no justification in coming to my personal talk page. With their puffed up importance and sudo malicious edit wording. I replied and respectfully asked that they refrain from cluttering up my page with any future frivolous, bizarre two letter edit comments. My response was blunt not aggressive, this is still on my personal talk page and will stay there.

While using the account RossEvans19, they edited [[Isobel Goodwin]] by adding the groundbreaking ‘missing’ On with no edit summary or comment, just corrected the Tiny error. In point of fact they rarely add any edit summary, which they have been asked about before.

(2) On 30 July 2026. The [[2026–27 Women's Super League]] match fixtures for the fourteen teams was released at 10:00 BST. I was working on the fixtures in my sandbox for [[London City Lionesses]] which I uploaded as a complete item at 19:39 30 July.

While using the account RossEvans19, they uploaded drips & drabs of the fixture information for six separate teams Aston Villa, Birmingham, Charlton Athletic, Crystal Palace, Everton and West Ham United. 28 match edits on the 30^th Between 11:59, 30 July – 23:29 over 11 ½ hours. None of these fixture lists appeared at a glance to have their complete correct. Times, dates, stadiums or locations.

At 21:05 on [[2026–27 London City Lionesses season]] editor Davemck corrected a duplicate

|stadium I had left on the page. This editor made no silly comments or snide remarks just quietly corrected my small error and moved on.

I thanked them, then went to their talk page and not immediately realising they were using a tool said.

Thanks for the small correction, this is the first time I have added a whole fixtures list. I did use a sandbox but… an extra ‘’’ stadium ‘’’ slipped past the goal! Could I point you at 2026–27 Aston Villa W.F.C. season not my work but it's a mess. 21:56, 30 July 2026.

(3) From this point while using the account RossEvans19. They for a better word stalked my contributions and joined the conversation ending up by using the F-Word. I copied it all to my own talk page as I rightly expected Davemck to delete it from their page.

(4) They claim that they are not or haven't been stalking me, but are clearly following my contributions otherwise how did they appear on user Davemck talk page?

(5) Not sure about a snide comment in an edit summary but I did use WP Stop. If you go to [[Lucía Corrales]] you will see this.

(6) kingoftheswords gosh. An editor follows me into another users talk page, uses the F-Word. But I am the one with conspiratorial delusions. And as for Kingif she has been fine and dandy as far as I am aware! When she brought an ANI I had no idea how to format anything to reply on that page. It’s a learning curve I guess. We now give each other a wide berth.

Not sure what else to say. PS I am female! While using the account RossEvans19. They keep misgendering myself. But at my age I can without doubt confirm I do not possess any extra items in my underwear or have ever wished to be of the male persuasion. PauseyPaul (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have said I will use an edit summary from now on, and I have been.

Regarding the match fixtures, I admit I was rushing to get them done and uploaded them half complete, but I've been going back and adding the times and dates. This is another reason I will be taking a wikibreak as I'm putting too much pressure on myself.

Davemck has edited various pages and I like to check user talk pages as a habit, that's where I saw your comment about my work being a mess, and I admit, I lost my head.

You used WP:STOP two days after our argument, when I was on Wikibreak and wasn't messaging you, so I had stopped already

Finally, I'm sorry for misgendering you. If I don't know someone's gender I use they/them, but as Paul is usually a male-given name, I used male pronouns before changing it to they/them. To be fair to me, it doesn't say anywhere on your profile what your pronouns are.

Look, I think the answer is simple. I would like to ask you stop mentioning me in your edit summaries and sandbox. I will also give you space as well. However, we do both edit in the UK women's football space, so although we will give each other a wide berth, it's likely we will see each other's edits. It's just about managing it so we can both edit in the same space. RossEvans19 (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

(1) “You said at 23:23, 30 July 2026 I will add more descriptions in the future. And I will leave you alone.” Then you log on 4 days later and post an ANI that is not leaving me alone, that is escalating. It is not just myself that has asked you to use edit summaries.

(2) You have been asked in the past to slow down with your editing, this is not a new occurrence for yourself while logged in under User: RossEvans19. (speed editing in destubbing challenges) lets face the facts here this is not your only account. New novice users don’t normally create an account then speed through 74K worth of talk page stubs. That can’t possibly be relaxing for you! But oh well maybe it is! Shrugs.

(3) Of the six pages you edited for over 11 & ½ hours you have only been back and corrected 1 page not the other 5. Just a hint for West Ham United and all grounds wiki use the stadium name not the sponsorship name, on match lists [[Victoria Road (Dagenham)|Victoria Road]] and you have still not added any match times. But I am not a football expert it is merely one of my many interests.

(4) ‘’’Davemck has edited various pages and I like to check user talk pages as a habit, that's where I saw your comment about my work being a mess, and I admit, I lost my head. ‘’’ User:Davemck uses a tool to catch and (rmv duplicate parm) & (Clean up duplicate template arguments). So you out of habit follow other users contributions and talk pages… you are habitually stalking other editors talk pages not just myself. And you feel this is a perfectly normal.

(5) At  22:36, 30 July 2026  You again reverted my edit on [[Lucía Corrales]] Directly from this edit you went to a talk page and started using the F-Word against me Wikipedia:Stop it Why on earth you feel the need to stalk my edits and talk page comments I have no idea. But this has been going on for over 10 months!

(6) When you say Wikibreak do you mean you are not using the account RossEvans19 or all your accounts? Not that I would know if you were on or off any sort of break. Unless you made one of your Tiny edits to my work.

(7) To be fair to me!... My gender is none of your concern and as an editor the fact that I am a woman should make absolutely no difference to how you politely address myself or anyone. Wikipedia gives us the opportunity to chose our preference by ticking a circle, there is no stipulation anywhere that says editors have to gender themselves on their personal pages.

(8) I mentioned you on the [[Lucía Corrales]] page you are edit warring on. Could you point out the other edit summaries where I have mentioned the User name RossEvans19? Nope…. Not recently.

(9) Not sure why you are suddenly admitting to stalking my sandbox now! But the User name RossEvans19 is not on any of my practice pages and never has been. I find it incredibly weird that you are trolling through other editors Sandboxes/Practice pages. What on earth are you looking for?

(10) I think the answer is simple!! Stop Stalking me. Go and turn off the follows on my user name. Then we wont have to come back for another round of this bizarre grudge of yours. And don’t forget the edit summaries they help everyone not just this editor.

(removing this personal attack) PS the Surprise your stalkers on my talk page has been there since July 2023 the account you are using on this ANI did not exist then! I simply saw it somewhere and thought it was funny. PauseyPaul (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

1 - I was going to leave you alone but then you kept bringing me up in your edit summaries! It made me feel uncomfortable.

2 - Your right, this is not my only account, I used to have User:RossEvans18 before I got locked out of it. This is my only other account.

3 - I am still in the process of editing them.

4- I don't stalk anyone's talk page! I just check people's pages to see if there's anything I can do

5 - Because the information you put on Lucía Corrales shouldn't be on that page, it should be on the club article.

6 - Only my RossEvans19 account, which is my only account.

7 - I have been politely addressing you, using they/them when you don't know someone's pronouns is polite.

8 - I have already mentioned the other edit summaries you have mentioned me on, and not just that, you just called me a stalker again! and you can't remove an ANI notice, you have to communicate.

9 - It's not stalking. You were the one continuallly bringing up my name.

10 - Your not listening. You need to stop bringing me up, it's getting to harassment now. It's making me uncomfortable. And that's because I used to use User:RossEvans18!

This is getting absolutely nowhere, your making personal attacks against me and refusing to listen to anything people are saying. You called me a stalker after I told you it made me uncomfortable. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Admin closing

This isn't getting anywhere and is making me feel uncomfortable. Can we get an admin to intervene? I don't want this to continue any longer. I know I started it but maybe I should have just let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossEvans19 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure you aren't tossing boomerangs here. Your edits following PauseyPaul on 2026–27 London City Lionesses season, for example, were questionable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Your right. I shouldn't have acted the way I did. I'm going to be taking a self-imposed Wikibreak because it's clear Wikipedia shouldn't be my priority right now. I'm at fault here too. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have just seen that SarekOfVulcan has temporarily blocked Pauseypaul. I am going to finish up the edits I said I would do and then I will be taking my Wikibreak. I think we can say this is over now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossEvans19 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Repeated removal of existing source with duplicate simple link & adding same info that officially unconfirmed

• Visa policy of South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ~2026-42959-35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• special:diff/1365680675/1367394257
• ~2026-42947-17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• special:diff/1367475092/1367555841

Gzyeah (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This is block evasion of ~2026-33807-59 (see ) and ~2026-30582-02 (see ) --TonySt 04:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Continued misuse of userspace

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

Back in May I blanked this individual's userpage and made them aware of our rules regarding userpages and excessive personal content or a bio of oneself was not an acceptable use of userspace. They restored the content and argued that it was acceptable because Binksternet (deliberately left untagged here because I don't necessarily want him caught in the crossfire of this report) has the same sort of userpage. Despite my explanation that other peoples' rulebreaking does not make the rule cease to exist (and I'm fairly sure Bink's userpage is also inappropriate) this editor was not dissuaded.

At the time I dropped the issue because I didn't have the energy to pursue it, but it's come up again now that Drmies has revdelled some of the content on their userpage. I once again stated that the whole thing is inappropriate, and they once again are accusing me of hypocrisy and using Bink's userpage as an excuse.

Can we please communicate to this editor that they do in fact need to follow WP:USERBIO? Athanelar (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting that the user in question has had a history of WP:SHOUTING replies. Borgenland (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Also same abusive behavior in Talk:F2F (song)#Reverts. Borgenland (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar: Drmies already removed the worst of it, which definitely should have been removed. Some people do not have a filter. This can feel like they're violating decorum or social rules. My advice is to just let it go and focus on something useful. @OpinionsAreFreeSpeech: I think you should chill out. If you can't follow decorum, someone will eventually block you. You may wish to look for a mentor. And, no, I am not a good choice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Certainly, but considering OAFS responded to that by accusing Drmies of vandalism, it would seem the problem currently has no guarantees it won't repeat. Athanelar (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I think you'd make a great mentor; I consider you one. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

That's kind of you to say, but I was diagnosed as bipolar, unlike OpinionsAreFreeSpeech. I think OpinionsAreFreeSpeech would find that bipolar people are great fun to be around on a good day, but I will eventually have a bad day and screw up everything big time. But, whatever, if anyone wants help, they can always post to my user talk page. I think people will find that there's technical assistance, emotional validation, and sarcasm in equal measures, sometimes in the same post. Actually, there's probably more sarcasm than emotional validation. I should work on that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Email abuse

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

---

Just received an abusive email with racist epithets from EvenBurger (talk · contribs). Borgenland (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The user in question now not only has email access revoked, but has their account globally locked from editing, both of which prevents them from using the wiki-email feature. @Borgenland, in the future, abusive emails should be reported (and forwarded) to the Arbitration Committee email address, as regular admins here on this noticeboard wouldn't be able to actually see emails or verify claims of email abuse. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to note that, if your account has existed for a long while and is in good standing, admins will indeed reblock with email turned off for a blocked account upon a report here, then sort the sheep from the goats later by seeking a forwarding of the abusive emails to arbcom and the like. There are consequences for that not happening, but our bureaucracy doesn't require people to put up with abusive emails from blocked accounts until a set of arbitrary boxes have been ticked via a set of nebulous extra requirements. It would be terrible if it did. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 20:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism and sockpuppetry at Randolph Bresnik

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

---

The page Randolph Bresnik and others have been under a barrage of vandalism from a string of Russian-named accounts. Once one is blocked, a new user pops up to continue the vandalism. I believe an IP-range block might be in order to break this cycle. Normally I would report this at WP:SPI but I believe the issue is more urgent than that. Also, due to the persistent sock puppetry, I am forgoing the stand practice of notifying the editors about this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• It's a returning attention-seeker. User:Staraction is on the case. You can report at AIV, RFPP, etc.--whatever you think gets the fastest result. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

TPA revoke

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

---

Бревенчатая таверна (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been indeffed for vandalism and block evasion, now pinging random users with the text "Porya Azizi Delete". Please revoke TPA. CheeseAndJamSamdwich (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I support this, and came here to file a request to do the same. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

CsShopee24 is not here to build an encyclopedia

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

---

CsShopee24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are repeatedly spamming the same thing with a phone number across different pages. Likely a phishing attempt, advertisement, or something similar, and clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Revdel may also be necessary for all of their edits.

Diffs: , , , , , , , , , ... — Raihanur (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Statistics South Africa is being constantly vandalised

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

---

• Statistics South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure if the page is being used by a school or something, the page has vandalism history from unregistered accounts going back a while, and a bunch of different accounts are adding different sets of two people's names to the infobox, and breaking it as well. Page should probably be locked but I assume it would move to another page if that happened. Balance3641 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Page protected. For future reference, reports about simple/obvious vandalism like this can be brought to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

oh, sorry about that, thank you. :) Balance3641 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Aeontamaraw

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

This user started editing in 2008 and it's a surprise how they were able to evade any scrutiny given their editing practice. Here are what I can find:

• This user is non-communicative. Out of all 154 edits to their talk page, this user only edited their own TP only once, and it's about adding promotional information about some random Catholic organization. They're racking up warnings since 2008 (!) but this user doesn't seem to notice and/or care.
• This user doesn't use edit summaries since forever. They only have a 40% edit summary usage, and I'm quite sure most of those are considered edit summaries when they edit a specific article. The most recent 'proper' edit summary that I can find is 'update' from 2024.
• This user doesn't provide sources to their edits. Their edits are not vandalism per se, but it's hard to confirm their edits since they don't use edit summaries at all. As you can see from their talk page warnings, they're either about their non-addition of sources, or their non-usage of edit summaries.

Given these, I think it's time to do something about this editor as warnings don't work at all. I would probably be more understanding if they are a new user, but this user has an account since 2008. ^{Dieter Lloyd Wexler} 15:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that the user should know better. They've been blocked for BLP violations but that was years ago; among their recent edits I don't see BLP material. But the slew of unexplained edits and the disregard for citations is not cool, even if it's "just" TV programs and stuff like that. Blocking for a week--and hoping they don't start socking again. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user

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

---

A new user, Cleanuptime34, is making a series of unconstructive edits (contribs) despite being told multiple times to stop. They have 5 warnings on their talk page, of which 4 are for adding unsourced content. They continue to add unsourced content , bordering on edit warring. They are also undoing edits with no explanation. Lastly, some of their edits feel pointless at best and unconstructive at worst, and without any type of communication whatsoever.

I dont know how to communicate effectively with this editor.

I initially posted this on AIV but I wasn't postive it was vandalism, so I assumed good faith and posted it here instead. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 18:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: At the time of writing, out of 228 edits, they have 12 edit summaries. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 18:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted practically every edit by this user today. Unsourced, unexplained and just plain wrong, all of them. Either subtle vandalism, or, assuming good faith, a significant competence issue. Either way, this editor is ignoring others and is reverting when challenged. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

And having looked back further, I'd say there is a good case for reviewing every edit by this editor. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Given the pattern of editing, good possibility that this is a sock. this edit and this edit are repeats of edits by a LTA sock.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive edditing and uncooperative behavior

TVEditingVideos2025 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in disruptive and uncooperative behavior for some time now.

Including:

• Violations of an AfD consensus as redirect: see ,
• Addition of protection templates to non-protected pages:
• Persistent use of uncooperative edit summaries and ownership of article:
  • Added Balitang Probinsya, and I add Protection padlock, so TurquoiseGoose could not add redirect again, and removed XfD closer because is not here anymore
  • Tomorrow at 7:00 PM, I will remove AfD. If there's an error tomorrow night, I'm going to remove it next week.
  • I will remove Articles for Deletion soon and Donaldd23 created it last Wednesday.
  • I removed already 👏😁 (attempting to blank the AfD discussion)
  • many attempts to remove AfD notice from the article filter log
• Persistent uncooperative, bad faith, and article ownership behavior on talk page:
  • Yeah, I'm going to be an administrator soon in response to the notice about disruptive editing and addition of protection templates
  • I have to add pp-move, and pp-extended|small=yes on All TV News: Mabilis Lang 'To, so TurquoiseGoose could not add redirect again. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All TV News: Mabilis Lang 'To will expire soon. And Google Search gonna add show information called All TV News: Mabilis Lang 'To.
  • Blanking talk page warnings without addressing them or change in behavior

The user has been given plenty of warnings, including many final warnings, but the bahavior continued. See talk page messages before it was blanked: - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 18:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with a younger editor who has some good intentions but is doing a lot of wrong things. Also note that they've blanked their user talk page several times, so the whole history of issues is a bit obscured. I'm going to block them from articles and invite to talk here in an attempt to salvage a potentially useful future editor. We'll see. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

edit warring at Iraq in the 2026 Iran war

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

---

Im requesting admin intervention on that article since it appears to be the place for an edit war between different TAs, one of which is removing the infobox with no justification - both in reality are not only edit warring but also editing a article which should be protected in the first place, since its related to middle eastern conflicts. MySalsa22 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

None of those TAs ought to be in there in the first place (the 2026 Iran War is explicitly protected because it falls under WP:PIA). This is just a subtopic of it, that deals with the same underlying issues. There's already a protection request in (I got a notice there was a request already when I tried to place the request in Twinkle). Utter shitshow this article is at the moment thanks to rampant TA editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The article has been ECPed by The Bushranger. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Accusations of neo-Nazism

BreadAndHumus (talk · contribs) is trying to imply in a not-so-subtle way that his interlocutors at Talk:Greece are neo-Nazis . The diff is self-explanatory, really. This would be grounds for a topic ban at AE, but I don't think this user has been formally warned of discretionary sanctions. Khirurg (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Khirurg: the "editor must be aware before being sanctioned" requirement was removed in June, the only remaining preresquite is that breaches of page restrictions (i.e. 1RR, enforced BRD, etc.) require the page to have an editnotice stating the restriction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Besides being disruptive (One edit-war report and SPI filed last month), the user slowly exhibits strong POV issues in WP. These WP:ASPERSIONS begun yesterday, implying that editors attempt to "legitimize irridentist claims"; they brought up an obsolete irredentist concept (diff) and a map from the site of a banned neo-Nazi organization (diff). Additionally, they implied that those who disagreed with them may "have an underlying objective (diff)", eventually culminating to today's direct statement. I should note that this constant assumption of WP:BADFAITH isn't new either, as accusations of "owing", finding "excuses", etc. were commonly used before. (diff)

Lastly, every time they had been reverted, they were given clear reasons by many editors as to why that was, dispite often finding them "unconvincing", just to address the WP:WALLOFTEXT below. Piccco (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Greece is probably one of the most visited pages about Greece, if not the most visited. It is a prime location to advertise.

1) How does Khirurg explain his insertion of this map in November 2025 that grossly misrepresents the area of Greek colony penetration in the Archaic age? Here is the source of the map:

2) Does he consider the map to be reminiscent of this map of the Megali Idea for the areas of Turkey, Cyprus, and the Balkans?

3) Why has he not accepted my map as a replacement when my map accurately renders the source? What is the reason behind his refusal? Why does he accept a fake map and not a real one? BreadAndHumus (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I have great difficulty with A.Cython. His behavior is disruptive; he “owns” many articles and he is stalking me.

The problems appeared since I started editing the Byzantines and Byzantine Empire articles. The following is indicative of A.Cython’s behavior.

In the Byzantines article I make many edits. Demetrios1993 comes and removes some of them, claiming “cleaning up”: I restore the edits adding quotes:

A.Cython reverts, claiming: “I would suggest to take a hint by the revert from other editors, moreover your edits overwhelmingly rely on Kaldellis who is very controversial and refuted nearly by every other historian, thus creating WP:POV issues”:

Demetrios1993 then partially accepts my edits: A.Cython no longer objects, at least partially. The important observation is that in principle A.Cython objects to my edits, but when the same edits come from Demetrios1993 he does not.

I continue making edits. A.Cython comes and reverts:

I revert back.

A.Cython returns and reverts all my edits, even the ones he previously accepted: Indicative of his behavior is the claim that one of the reasons for the revert was “minor MoS issues,” when such issues should simply have been corrected by him.

Cython adds a new topic to the talk page: naming it "Un-constructive edits by BreadAndHumus" (not very friendly title). Discussion ensues but there is no consesus. I open a case at the Dispute resolution noticeboard: . The process initially fails and the mediator warns us: “Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.” The process starts again and A.Cython presents his arguments; I also present mine. Contrary to the mediator’s instructions, A.Cython again engages in back-and-forth discussion. I ask and warn him on his talk page to delete his statements after mine, that he must wait for the volunteer to respond first, that the proper order is Volunteer , you , me, that he is creating problems, and that he should not engage in back-and-forth discussion:

Nevertheless, A.Cython does not listen to my advice to delete his statements after mine and continues the back-and-forth discussion:

He even edits my comment, which is against WP:TPO: All of this led to the total failure of the case.

I have to note that in the article Byzantines in the section Identity Self-perception there is a "The neutrality of this section is disputed" template and that the case in Dispute resolution noticeboard was about this section.

Example of only A.Cython seeing problems when others do not

I make an edit adding sources and quotes to Greece: Another editor checks and fixes a typo, which means he saw nothing wrong with my edit no POV, no NOTHERE, etc.:

A.Cython then comes, deletes even the sources, and attacks, saying: “manual revert, you have been advised several times before in other articles not to inject WP:POV, WP:OR, and above all avoid editwarring, spilling this attitude here as well will not help.” All of his statements are very aggressive and irrational. I didn't inject anything. I just deleted a phrase that was against consensus providing sources and quotes.

A.Cython stalking me and reverting me for the sake of reverting me

A.Cython never made edits in Justinian I before. After my edits in Byzantines he starts stalking me.

I made some edits in Justinian I and in the process I added by mistake a duplicate source and I reverted myself . A.Cython comes and reverts back to the mistake claiming my self revert as "unjustified source removal" I then revert back saying that the source was already there and that the source was added by me . A.Cython comes and adds the source back again in a shorten form

He just reverts for the sake of reverting and to intimidate me.

Refusal to remove a grossly exaggerated map

I remove a map (the same one) from Greece, Archaic Greece, and Greek colonisation because it grossly misrepresents the Archaic Greek colonies: , ,

Please check for yourselves whether my observation is correct. Note the original map, which has a thin green line of maybe 10 km in northern Turkey and almost no thickness in southern Turkey, while the new map has a thickness of 70–100 km. In western Anatolia there are some coastal areas that Greeks did not have any penetration like in Caria and Lycia while the new map shows 70-100km. In north west Anatolia the original map shows 20km penetration while the new map 100-150km. Generally the same applies to Egypt, southern Italy, Albania, Spain, and France. Also, the areas of Epirus (150km were added), Macedonia (150km were added) and Thrace (50-70km) are included in the new map to fit the current borders of Greece. Cyprus is presented as totaly Greek.

A.Cython is stocking me as he has never edited before Greek colonisation and only once in Archaic Greece. After checking the source, A.Cython reverts everything, claiming (in Greece) that "manual revert, do not remove relevant figures that assist the reader without good reasons and yes I checked the maps in a book where you did not provide pages, they look similar so the "grossly misrepresents" is completely unjustifiable..." (Notice: The page is in the link I provided.)

, , , He even sends me a warning on my talk page about being disruptive:

Maybe WP:STONEWALL apllies here "4. Employing gaslighting tactics " Up to this point A.Cython did not provide any other maps (see bellow) and his statments should be taken in this context.

General environment of intimidation, observation by an admin that WP:OWN applies and more

As I've said the problems with my editing began when I started editing the Byzantines and Byzantine Empire articles. The intimidation and efforts to eliminate me started soon afterward. Demetrios1993 created a sockpuppet case and later Piccco filed an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents case against me . What is striking, at least regarding Piccco, is the misrepresentation of my wording in both the sockpuppet and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents cases.

In particular, he took my statement out of context. He wrote, referring to me: “Language, such as if this continues and you don't provide when evidence reverting my future edits, finding obvious excuses, things will escalate on July 23 is, in my opinion, a WP:NOTHERE indicator”

when my full post was: “I have the feeling you are just finding excuses to exclude me from editing. If you have issues with WP:MOS you can tweak the sentence without changing the meaning, not delete it. You have reverted all my edits in Byzantines as if nothing was constructive even for your taste. You continuously ignore to present evidence about scholars disagreeing with ANY of the statements in the paragraph about self identity. I will repeat to you that all the statements are not controversial and supported by the majority of scholars. If this continues and you don't provide when evidence reverting my future edits, finding obvious excuses, things will escalate.”

In the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents case Piccco presented as proof of misconduct that I was reverted 7 times in 7 days (by them BTW) and that I've made 37 edits as if there are rules about anything of such.

The sockpuppet and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents cases led an admin to independently observe: “To answer BreadAndHumus's question about which rules forbid their behavior, WP:OWN comes to mind and edit warring is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule”

More on A.Cython

After A.Cython reverted my map deletion, I added a new topic on the talk page of Greece suggesting its removal. Again, what is striking is that Future Perfect at Sunrise and Piccco, instead of just acknowledging the mistake, started employing WP:STONEWALL gaslighting tactics – such as history rewriting, reality denial, misdirection, etc. ,

Up to this point, A.Cython did not participate and no additional maps were provided. Up to this point, the answers of Piccco and Future Perfect at Sunrise were solidly based on one source and should be taken in this context.

A.Cython later provided 2 new maps from 1890 from books for high schools. In 1890 there were strong irredentist claims from many Balkan countries and the maps in these books could be influenced by souch forces . None shows a 70–100 km deep strip in northern and southern Anatolia, none includes Epirus and Macedonia, and none depicts such deep penetration into Africa, Italy, France, and Spain. Again what is striking is the refusal to remove it and the employment of gaslighting.

I have created a map, after spending many hours, that accurately depicts the areas of Greek penetration as the source map depicts and replaced the one that grossly misrepresented the areas of Greek colonies . I've only added the colonies that the old map has, plus two new ones because putting them all will be very time consuming. Nothing was redacted of the old map regarding colonies. A.Cython again reverts me finding the usual excuses. . This is bad faith disruptive editing.

A.Cython arguing that the source is not reliable the same source that vigorously defended when it fitted him. All this is clearly WP:OWN and WP:STONEWALL

A.Cython again employing gaslighting tactics regarding the map that mistakes were fixed

Background of the issue with Byzantines and Greek historiography

I have asked two friends of mine from Greece to have a closer look, and both had roughly the same observation. I will summarise it here:

The articles regarding the Byzantines and Greece in general stem from a historical narrative that was developed in Greece after 1840 by Paparrigopoulos and was designed to support the irredentist claims of the Megali Idea. In this narrative, Byzantium was incorporated into the history of Greece, and Greece was destined to create a “Greek Empire.” Although this narrative has been largely abandoned after the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) debacle, it still survives in some peoples minds.

It is worrisome that this narrative is predominantly showcased on Wikipedia. I believe that the map I noted above was designed to further this ideology in a subtle way. It grossly misrepresents the extent of Ancient Greek colonies, legitimising irredentist claims. Look how similar it is to this map from 1919 for the areas of Greece, Cyprus and Turkey:

Nishjan part of them playing good cop bad cop?

Out of nowhere Nishjan comes and participates in the talk although he never edited the page before. What is very suspicious is that beforehand he started removing maps that are connected to [Megali Idea] and that he knew exactly where these maps were. IMO he wanted to hide evidence or to make them more difficult to find. He removed this irredentists map from: Koine Greek Ancient Greek Greek Language Hellenic Languages History of Greek Byzantines Megali Idea Mariupol Greek

He sided with me in the beginning, but now his participation on the talk page is simply intended to misdirect.

Nishjan should be checked if he is a sockpuppet acount of demetrios1993, Khirurg, A.Cython, Piccco and Future Perfect at Sunrise.

BreadAndHumus (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

While Khirurg's editing could have issues which should still be handled if deemed needed, it is hard to parse this borderline WP:WALLOFTEXT to find why you thought, I hope no one here has any connection with this criminal neo-Nazi organization responsible for the murders of Pavlos Fyssas and Murder of Shahzad Luqman, although this would explain many things. was something that you think was okay to say. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The mistake will not be repeated. BreadAndHumus (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

So to summerize, assuming I actually understood your issue from this dense wall of text: You believe that A.Cython (someone unrelated to the initial report) is running a sockpuppet ring to stalk your edits and maintain incorrect information in several articles, and in response you are now subtley accusing others of being connected to Neo-Nazis? (Which you say won't happen again as per below.) If this is off the mark, kindly trim down this wall to be more concise for future reviewers, cause most people are not willing to wade through all this. 🌻SunflowerWizard🌻 (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Although it's not true that numbers matter in a disagreement on ANI, I begin to wonder about an editor who finds themselves finding so many other editors disagreeing with them on every single matter. This is a collaborative editing project and yet all I see in your WallOfText is editors whom you have no respect for or who you find yourself on the opposite side of in disagreements. Are there no editors on this project you see as allies, that you can work with constructively? See User:Guy Macon/One against many. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  An admin independently had the same observation as me. He said: “To answer BreadAndHumus's question about which rules forbid their behavior, WP:OWN comes to mind and edit warring is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule” BreadAndHumus (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  The admin's comment is about your behaviour, after you dismissed the report asking Is there any rule that forbids an editor from being reverted 7 times in 7 days or any rule that limits the total number of edits an editor can make?. The admin's closing remark ...edit warring is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule means your constant reverts on a daily basis were, in fact, disruptive. Piccco (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  The fact that once again you’ve taken my quote out of context and twisted it is indicative that you are WP:NOTHERE. My full quote was: "And what exactly is the purpose of "Times user has been reverted until today:" and "Total edits in article" stated above? Is there any rule that forbids an editor from being reverted 7 times in 7 days or any rule that limits the total number of edits an editor can make?". It was a rhetorical question referring to your invention of new rules, not simply a question. In your ANI you listed 7 of my edits that were reverted. You also listed "Total edits in article: 37". The admin observed that "To answer BreadAndHumus's question about which rules forbid their behavior, WP:OWN comes to mind and edit warring is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule". The word in "which rules forbid their behavior" was "their", not "your". He was referring to you and A.Cython. BreadAndHumus (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Just as you have the access to edit so is anyone else. Your edits have no more weight than anyone else, unless they violate WP policies. The 3RR rule exists to put a stop to reverts. The articles you were editing have been developed by other editors and there was a consensus on the narrative. You broke consensus with edits that other editors saw as not improvements (this must have been clear to you in the RfC). We tried to explain this to you at the talk pages. What did you do? You reverted, you threatened escalation, you called for RfC, you called for Dispute Resolution in which you again did not addressed the evidence, and right now we have to deal with all these conspiratorial accusations. Do you think this is pleasant for us? We would love for you to edit and help improve these articles, but you need to learn to do this in a collaborative manner and comply with WP policies, just as Liz mentioned above. Anyone can edit but this is not Wild West, i.e., the fasted edit wins. The best way to do this is to understand how WP works. My advise is the one I gave you at the beginning. Pick a non-controversial subject and try to improve it to good article (WP:GA) status through the GA review process; pick up a mentor to assist you. This way you will see how to improve an article, i.e., it needs the approval of someone else as he/she understands WP policies. The more people agree that an article is improved the better, which is why we have different venues to receive feedback from other editors, e.g., WP:PR. One can further improve an article to WP:FA status, but here one has to accept input/criticism from more than 4-5 or more other experienced editors, who may question every word in every sentence. And yes even experienced editors may have failed nominations. I emphasize again, you, just like everyone else, need the approval of the other editors, so fighting them will not take you places. A.Cython(talk) 22:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Response by A.Cython

This is my perspective of what is going on. The editor is practicing WP:OR, inserting WP:POV, and spreading disruption to several articles Byzantine Empire, Byzantines, and now Greece (there are also concerns in Procopius, Justinian, etc). The majority of BreadAndHumus's edits have been reverted because they violated WP:POLICIES, from simple one like removing numerous redlinks (WP:REDLINK) from articles in a matter of hours (e.g., , , and ) to issues of WP:OR and WP:POV in contentious topics not to mention worries for source-text integrity damages. Moreover, the editor does not include an edit summary making it difficult to access what is going on, just see this one. Eventually, the editor got a 3RR warning for editwaring. Later on the editor initiated a Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard (see at archives p.274 under "Byzantines") where still refused to addressed the evidence, the dispute became inconclusive because there was no acknowledgement by the editor for the presented evidence, leading to direct replies by all involved editors.

The accusation of my or any other editors reverts of BreadAndHumus's edits are the problem (e.g., and ) then read the RfC initiated by BreadAndHumus: Talk:Byzantine_Empire#RfC_for_the_inclusion_of_ancestries_in_the_language_section where there is universal consensus by well established editors against BreadAndHumus's position. All the reverts (by me and other editors) have been explained in the corresponding talk pages by presenting evidence. However, BreadAndHumus continuously deflects and avoids to address any concerns.

Even with the proposed replacement of the map in "Greece" article (initially the editor just removed it from several articles without consensus, e.g., ). The editor failed to act constructively. Even when he proposed to provide a replacement then the new map was inserted before even there was a consensus . The editor refuses to acknowledge anything from other editors including a question from Future Perfect at Sunrise regarding Thasos:

• No Greek colonies on Thasos? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 4 August 2026.
• the map you're defending now doesn't have a colony in Thasos. I've only put the colonies this map had. We can put a colony on Thasos but the color will remain non Greek. BreadAndHumus (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Of course the statement that the Thasos is non-Greek is wrong, see the map I had mentioned where Thasos is painted with Greek color, but if you want further evidence just read the chapter on Thasos which was not only a Greek colony but also a Greek metropolis. The decision of the editor to remove Thasos is effectively WP:OR. Note that the source map has Thasos as a Greek colony, so there is no excuse by the BreadAndHumus for this removal. This is of course not the only issue with the proposed map, but you get the idea.

BreadAndHumus has caused too much distress to me and to other editors such as Piccco, Biz, Aetolorhode, Demetrios1993 and Khirurg. BreadAndHumus has threatened me with escalation at my talk page: If this continues and you don't provide when evidence reverting my future edits, finding obvious excuses, things will escalate. BreadAndHumus 12:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC) This behavior is especially worrisome if one considers that BreadAndHumus's account became active on 4 July 2026, i.e., in a single month and here we are (a RfC, a Dispute Resolution, a 3RR warning, now ANI). I hope I speak for all the other editors that we would much prefer to work on improving articles and bring them to GA or higher level, something that I have been doing since the start of the year, than arguing with someone who refuses to look at evidence.

I will be happy to address any questions by the administrators. Thank you and I apologize for the long response. A.Cython(talk) 02:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Additional evidence

Nishjan has never previously edited any of the articles about Koine Greek, Ancient Greek, Greek language, Hellenic languages, History of Greek, Byzantines, Megali Idea, or Mariupol Greek. His removal of this irredentist map from all the above articles should be linked to the exposure of a grossly exaggerated and similar map in the article about Greece. Things were becoming very hot, and similar maps needed to be removed. Another observation is that Nishjan was either informed that things were heating up and instructed to remove the maps, or he is a sockpuppet account of one of the participants. There is no other rational explanation. He knew exactly where to go and what to do. BreadAndHumus (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You are clogging the page with, unrelated to the report, 4D-chess aspersions, making it extremely hard to navigate through. Piccco (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Chatting In Space Program talk pages from ~2026-39107-52 Past Final Warning

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

---

~2026-39107-52 (talk · contribs) is spamming the same message on any talk page to do with a space program talking about Refrain from inventing ultra-modern engines or devices to prevent lunar landings or mechanical accidents.... This is ALL of their contribs, they did this early last month and seems like they had stopped until the start of this month. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

All these worlds are ours except Europa...and all the Web is theirs except English Wikipedia. (Indef'd.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Masked Singer vandal is active again

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Masked Singer vandal
• December 2025 ANI report
• July 2026 ANI report
• ~2026-42759-61 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-42872-36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-39845-96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-43254-22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-42854-08 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-42853-03 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-43024-35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

The Masked Singer vandal came before this noticeboard about ten days ago, and some blocks were made by Black Kite. They are active again, adding more unreferenced influences and genres to music biographies. Can we get some more blocks in place? Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding Special:Contributions/~2026-43024-35 who is continuing the pattern, edit-warring at the Ashnikko biography. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they are the Masked Singer vandal, but they are hopping from TA to TA sprinkling BLP violations as they go, so I've placed some blocks to (hopefully) slow them down.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, the first six TAs are obviously LTA Masked Singer vandal, it's just ~2026-43024-35 that's the outlier.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Excessive detail in infoboxes, against consensus of community

The editor Hughbe98 has been adding such detail to infoboxes on UK legislation that the pages are unworkable. There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK legislation#Excessive_detail which the user has not engaged with. There was an attempt in April by other editors to draw the Hughbe98's attention to this, and while there was initial engagement there, the problem persisted.

I'm escalating this quickly to ANI because of the lack of engagement.I assume good faith to this extent: Hughbe98's talk page has a lot of comments from other editors, and in some cases he's responding that because of the sheer volume, he has missed certain things, or not previewed before saving. It's possible that in combing through legislation, he's missed talk page notifications. But of course, Wikipedia will never be finished, sheer volume is not a basis for not engaging with the community. In these edits, Hughbe98's has taken Wikipedia for a quasi-legislation directory, rather than considering the encyclopedic value to each article on legislation. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

Firstly, please accept my apologies for not engaging with your post. I did see a few items on talk page about various deletions of categories (which I don't think I created but which I added items to). Thanks for assuming good faith though! I was not aware of a 36 hour deadline to response to your message and apologise that you felt the need to escalate.

I also apologise for not using preview previously and redlinking categories. As you say, this is partly due to the volume, but I have integrated preview into my editing workflow and am pleased that this hasn't been so much of an issue recently. The state of articles and infoboxes relating to UK legislation is poor. Many infoboxes are essentially skeletons. Many articles are uncited, non-standard and in need of improvement.

I _would_ like to get some consensus on what we should include on wiki. It is clear that we should fill out metadata about acts (repealing acts, link to text, commencement dates, repeal dates, expiry dates, territorial extent etc.)

On amendments, I believe there is a balance to strike. I accept in the past I added too many minor non-consequential amendments to infoboxes and that meant major items get lost in the noise. I do believe we benefit from including significant/notable amendments in infoboxes, for example:

1. Acts that explicitly mention the act in the long title
2. Acts that are mentioned in the article but not in the infobox
3. Acts that materially add, modify or remove the provisions of the original
4. Statute law revision/repeals acts
5. Consolidation acts that affect the original

On the reverse end, I do believe that there should be a parallel. If act A lists act B in the `amends` list, then B should list A in the `amendments` list.

Acknowledging though that wiki is NOT a statute law database, I also believe there is merit in lowering the bar for including amendments for acts that are not listed fully on legislation.gov.uk. This is because as Wikipedians I believe we should be explaining the changes to old legislation, if notable/cited.

I'd like to say at the end that regardless of the outcome of this discussion - which is my first ANI - I have really enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia and cleaning up the articles and infoboxes for acts of parliament across Wiki. It is a mammoth task and one that keeps growing as I have seen users have been going somewhat chronologically through the statute book and adding add more and more infoboxes in, with very little information in them. Further, adding, clarifying and correcting the list of repeals in our statute law book on Wiki is, I believe, an important service to the public's understanding of UK law, as there is limited public domain information on repeals before 1991.

I'll hold off editing infoboxes until this can be discussed further. Hughbe98 (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There was not a 36-hour deadline to respond. However, I escalated for these reasons:

1. there was a discussion in April both on the relevant template talk page and your own talk page, yet the editing in this fashion continued
2. I had tagged you in the discussion and left a message on your talk page, both of which should have given you a notification, yet over the continuing day, you continued to edit without engaging, not just with me, but with another editor who had responded yesterday at Template talk:Infobox UK legislation#Excessive_detail.

I'd suggest taking it to the talk page of the template in question, where a consensus can be determined. Possibly also to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law to get a consensus on what should be included in an article on a piece of legislation. I'm not sure I agree with you that it is our role as Wikipedians to be filling in the gaps and linking legislation in this way. The noble goal of "Further, adding, clarifying and correcting the list of repeals in our statute law book on Wiki is, I believe, an important service to the public's understanding of UK law, as there is limited public domain information on repeals before 1991" might considered WP:SYNTH. An incidental or occasional reference to a statutory provision isn't quite in that realm, but wholescale cross-referencing between statutes falls closer to that.

I came across your edits because a focus in my own edits on law and history, so I'm certainly think there's more to be added to Wikipedia, and commend it in principle. But articles on law should primarily be discursive, rather than a substitute for a legislation directory.

Considering that you're holding off editing infoboxes until there's more discussion, I'll withdraw the ANI discussion. You might also considering holding off on lengthy amendment tables too. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

If I want the detailed history of UK statutory amendments or repeals, I go to the primary source: www.legislation.gov.uk It can be difficult to untangle even for a specialist. I wouldn't look at WP, where even if accurate it would be WP:EXCESSIVE. We are not a legal textbook. Narky Blert (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced edits to white supremacist groups

For the past couple of months, there seems to be a concerted and ongoing effort to change various white supremacist groups to European-American by multiple TAs. Targeted pages include Aryan Brotherhood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Public Enemy No. 1 (gang) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), European Kindred (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) among others.

None of these changes are sourced; the citations in the articles all describe them as white supremacist. There's also been suspicious edits where "white" is capitalized while "African-American" is changed to "black" and uncapitalized.

Looking through the page histories of these articles, I honestly lost track of all the TAs. Some of them include ~2026-42935-20 (talk · contribs), ~2026-42833-28 (talk · contribs), ~2026-41511-29 (talk · contribs), ~2026-38033-51 (talk · contribs), ~2026-33494-53 (talk · contribs), ~2026-33241-52 (talk · contribs), and ~2026-34002-67 (talk · contribs) who was actually blocked.

There was this TA ~2026-41636-44 (talk · contribs) who said "unblock me" after making one of the edits on Aryan Brotherhood so this could all be one person avoiding a block or an LTA or something, but I don't know for sure. I'm pretty much at a loss as to what to do about this. Sigma440 (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Based on TAIV info, these all appear to be the same user across one IPv4 range and one IPv6 range. They've been blocked on multiple TAs, so anything new can be blocked as block evasion. But I don't immediately see any IP blocks that would be appropriate. The /43 subnet on their IPv6 range could make sense to p-block from some pages, but they have relatively varied targets (and p-blocks max at 10 pages), and a siteblock would cause too much collateral damage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Commander Keane - personal attacks, hounding and WP:AGF failure

Commander Keane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an experienced editor on en-wiki, so this latest interaction has come as a surprise. I recently reverted two edits - one unexplained content removal and one unsourced content change . As I always do, I leave the appropriate welcome or user warning template on the editor’s talk page. Commander Keane noticed these edits and restored them with the appropriate sourcing, which is great and helpful… however they then proceeded to the user talk pages and labelled the templates as “erroneous”, which they weren’t as the edits made were problematic.

When challenged on this labelling of warning templates as “erroneous” on their talk page, their response was personal attacks - … although I understand from our conversation on your talk page that you do not have enough time to assume good faith, add sources or be productive in your editing activities, so asking for diffs is probably too much. and It is true that Special:Contributions/Danners430 is a tremendously rich source of edits that do not contribute to article content, fallaciously warn users about their good-faith edits, and attempt to bully and harass users (many of whom are new).

Even more concerningly, they do appear now to be stalking my edits again, no problem at all with them making genuine improvements to the encyclopaedia, but the fact that the edits are to an article and user talk that they’ve never previously contributed to, and are now discovering them likely through my contributions page is concerning. The message on the user talk is especially inflammatory, given their blatant accusation of bad faith - Potentially, the warning you have been given here (that you can safely ignore) is because an editor did not investigate your edit, did not understand it as I did and assumed bad-faith (even though we have an assume good faith guideline). Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Immediately after filing this, they responded on their talk page with a message which included the following - Sorry for the delay, I was attempting to fix another one of your messes. I’m not sure when WP:CIVIL stopped applying here… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There's also this (talking to you on this issue it like talking to a brick wall) and this (There is a user whose actions I really don't understand, as they are purely destructive.) comment. While I wouldn't call them personal attacks yet, they're clearly not good faith. Nobody (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, this is just awful—an administrator publicly berating an editor for not coughing up the research to provide the rationale for another editor’s unexplained mass deletion of article text. And then effusively praising the deleting editor in a way that appears to rub Danners430’s nose in it—seriously? Celjski Grad (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Technically, content needs to be verifiable. When content is verifiable but unsourced, it is in a gray area. Some editors lean toward WP:PRESERVE and choose to add sources. I prefer this method when it is obviously true and trivially sourceable. The thing is, though, that what a lot of people think is "obviously true" turns out to be hilariously wrong. This is where WP:BURDEN comes in. The burden for providing citations is on the person who wants to add or retain the content. So, technically, policy allows for unsourced content to be added – as long as there are sources out there that could verify it – but policy also allows this same content to be unilaterally removed and be forced to stay removed until properly sourced. Administrators and patrollers both should keep this in mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Without getting bogged down in the philosphies of RCP: the messages quoted and linked above are plainly uncivil. This is not the way for one editor to provide feedback to another. TonySt 20:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

What’s concerning is the subject of this discussion is continuing to edit, and even replied to the ANI notice, without participating here… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Davidhaighuk at Talk:David Haigh

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

---

• Davidhaighuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Haigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Davidhaighuk is the self-declared subject of David Haigh. He reverted my rewrite in full on 17 July, then registered his account, disclosed the revert was his, and then declared a conflict of interest. I would like to raise two conduct matters, namely (i) his insinuation of undisclosed conflict made twice after he accepted my confirmation that I have none, and (ii) the volume of advocacy at the edit-request process.

Background

For several years David Haigh has carried promotional material, which he has acknowledged included "promotional editing on my behalf that predates my involvement here" 18 July. On 6 July 2026 I rewrote the article for WP:NPOV and WP:BLP 6 July. 11 days later it was reverted in full 17 July. Mr Haigh registered this account the same day and disclosed that the revert was his 17 July. There does not appear to have been any concerns from Mr Haigh about the article in the years that the promotional material stood. His first intervention came eleven days after it was removed. He has since pursued the same changes through the request process, and everything below dates from that point.

1. Aspersions, after acceptance

On 22 July at BLPN I confirmed that I have no connection to Mr Haigh, GFH Capital, or any party or representative in the litigation. He replied: "thank you, the confirmation of no connection is accepted" BLPN, 22 July. 2 days later he requested other editors consider "the direction of these changes taken together", claiming "[t]ogether they run in a single direction" and stating "I make no assumption about why" 24 July. On 4 August he doubled down on this line, claiming that at every point my suggestions "resolve[] it adversely to me", that "I make no allegation about any editor's motives", and that "[w]hether any other account in this discussion has an interest or involvement that ought to be declared is a question for the appropriate noticeboard rather than this page, and I reserve the right to raise it there" 4 August. I am the only other account in this discussion. The reality of this situation is that an editor enforcing WP:NPOV on a biography is required to answer suggestions about his motives from the biography's subject, with nothing produced in support of them. My account predates this dispute by over a year and my contributions include unrelated topics. This biography became my principal area of editing only because my rewrite was reverted in full by its subject and has been under discussion ever since. Having spent some time reading around this, I understand that WP:ASPERSIONS requires accusations of misconduct to be made with evidence at the appropriate venue, or not made at all. Here, I think that would mean an editor who suspects an undisclosed conflict takes their evidence to WP:COIN or says nothing. Having expressly accepted my confirmation, Mr Haigh has twice reopened the question without producing anything. I have today asked him to withdraw it and bring it here at the same time, as this is the second occasion and I would rather it were dealt with once than raised a third time.

2. Accusation contradicted by his own wording

To provide another example of this conduct, on a different subject, he accused me of inventing a characterisation which was in fact a direct quote of his own language.On 24 July he wrote that my description of the March 2025 orders as a settlement "has no source" and was "your own reading, not something drawn from any reliable source" 24 July. His own edit request of 17 July had asked editors to insert wording beginning "In March 2025, following a confidential settlement, all of GFH's remaining claims against Haigh were dismissed by consent" 17 July. His post of 18 July repeats it and adds "no order as to costs" 18 July. GFH's own statement, quoted in the source under discussion, says the same. The accusation was made about wording he had proposed himself a week earlier. I don't have any interest in getting back into the weeds of sourcing, which is for the talk pahe, but this shows how Mr Haigh consistently responds to contested points with wild assertions about the other editor.

3. On the suggestion that my edits run in one direction

Mr Haigh's insinuation rests on a claim that my edits run consistently against him/"in one direction". I answered this on the talk page 24 July. In summary: Cooke J described Mr Haigh as a fraudster and I did not use the word, writing instead that the DIFC court found he had diverted company funds using false invoices. I used nothing from Henshaw J's judgment on his conduct of the proceedings (where the High Court is far more damning of Mr Haigh and his behaviour, particularly in how he conducted litigation and complied with court requirements, than anything contained in the article). I expanded the 2017 Scottish judgment from a single line into a full paragraph, quoting the sheriff's findings that he was an honest and intelligent witness and that he had been sexually assaulted and raped in detention. I retained the LGBTQ+ advocacy in full, including the Stonewall material, #ComeOut2Play, both National Diversity Awards shortlistings and the 2016 acquittal. On his degree, he claimed this had been deleted, when what came out was the post-nominal string "LLB Hons Law", with the degree itself remaining in the body. I have since accepted a number of points can be included if worded appropriately. I include this only because the suggestion has been made repeatedly. I know that the ultimate question of content is one for WP:BLPN or the talk page, so I am not asking for input on this here.

4. Volume of requests

Since 17 July he has filed four edit requests: 17 July, 18 July, 24 July and 1 August, several running to numbered lists of ten or more points, alongside a parallel thread at WP:BLPN. On 18 July User:JFHJr asked him to allow the process time 18 July. Two further requests followed. Several renew changes already contested and unresolved rather than awaiting review of the earlier ones. I accept my own responses have been long, and I probably should have stopped engaging some time ago. The difficulty is that a COI subject is expected to propose and then step back, and the cumulative effect is that no uninvolved editor can reach this article without first reading several thousand words from its subject. That is the opposite of what WP:COIADVICE contemplates.

5. Requested action

The position now is that routine NPOV cleanup on a poorly written biography has been met with repeated allegations about the editor rather than the edits. The claims that I have an interest requiring declaration, after he had accepted that I have none, and that my description of the settlement was invented, when it was his own wording, were both false when made, and demonstrably so. I ask:

1. That the COI insinuations be withdrawn per WP:ASPERSIONS, or taken to WP:COIN with evidence.
2. That he be reminded of WP:COIADVICE, and asked to consolidate his outstanding requests into one and await review rather than refiling contested points.
3. That a topic ban be considered if either continues.

I would also welcome frank feedback on my own conduct. I have spent far more time on this than I intended, my responses have been longer than they needed to be, and if uninvolved editors think I have handled this badly or should step back from the article, I would be grateful to hear this. But I am not going to put up with the subject of an article repeatedly casting aspersions about my motives when I am trying to turn an article from something that was blatantly self-promotional and poorly written to something that is more aligned with Wikipedia's standards. Leodensians (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• I am the subject of the article, editing with a declared COI, and I have read this with some discomfort. On the first point Leodensians is right. They confirmed on 22 July that they have no connection to the litigation and I accepted that confirmation. I should not have returned to the question on 24 July or 4 August, with or without disclaimers. I withdraw those remarks unreservedly, I have now struck both on the talk page, and I apologise to Leodensians. I will not raise the matter again, in any venue. On volume, the criticism is also fair. This is my own biography, the subject matter affects my livelihood, and I have over-argued; that is a reason, not an excuse. I will consolidate my outstanding requests into a single edit request and then step back and await review by uninvolved editors, whose decision I will accept. Davidhaighuk (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Withdrawn. Mr Haigh has withdrawn his allegations, committed not to repeat them, and has committed to stop spamming edit requests (though I would plead him NOT to consolidate your requests yet again, you’ve already done this!). Sorry for the wall of text to anyone reading.

  I’d rather have sorted this out on the talk page a fortnight ago, but here we are. The article discussion will carry on as normal I’m sure. Leodensians (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Khatirahmadburki0555 WP:COMPETENCE

The user was blocked once for strange eediting. After unblock they continue. Finally they started answering in their talk page and I see the person fails basic competence. See, e.g, the exchange:

• Please read Help:Edit summary and do not write false edit summaries as you did in Pir Roshan or Ormur articles. --Altenmann >talk 14:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Altenmann no, i belong to tribe of pir roshan lease afghan because he work for afghan Khatirahmadburki0555 (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

When I told to provide references, they stared adding fake references, like here (also broken formatting, but that's minor isue). --Altenmann >talk 15:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The do not understand the difference between town and valley: . When I explaied this, their answer was:

Regarding Kaniguram: -this article is about town. If you ant to wrote about valley, you hav to wrote article Kaniguram Valley. --Altenmann >talk 14:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Altenmann because i belong to Kaniguram and Kaniguram is valley and people working for making tehsil Khatirahmadburki0555 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

And so on. See their edits for yourself. I do not know what to do.--Altenmann >talk 15:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Talk:2026 Morocco–Spain border incident

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

---

• Template:Usderlinks
• 2026 Morocco–Spain border incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This temp account, ~2026-42677-92 created on 1 August, has edited almost exclusively on this single page 2026 Morocco–Spain border incident and the talk page. During the process of and after a terminology consensus "Irregular" vs "illegal" was reached, they have demonstrated an escalating pattern of behaviour culminating in disparraging a user based on their ethnicity:

• Made comments about the subjects of the article as: "military-aged gentlemen who could very well be serving their own nation and culture" diff and being "criminals and invaders" diff
  • When pointed out this wasn't the right approach for a Wikipedia editor diff, replied shaming the person: "'Not the way to do it' with 0 substantiation. Shame on you." diff
• Made ubsubstantiaded accusations towards multiple editors of using AI and being bots, with vulgar language diff diff diff
• Told an editor "it's worthless all the same, since you edit based on feelings, not objectivity": diff
• I asked them to keep on topic with policy and not make comments about other editors. diff
  • Following that, they posted this on the article talk page directed at me: "I have a question, feel free to translate it using A.I: 'How many war crimes were committed by Japan during the second World War?'" diff

The last of these was posted immediately after I asked them to confine their comments to policy. It bears no relation to any content matter under discussion on the page, and I can see no reading of the war crimes question other than as a reference to my ethnicity (apparent from my signature and user page). Taken with the preceding comments, this is a pattern of escalating personal attacks rather than a content disagreement, and it has continued after a request to not comment on other editors. The comment has since been reverted by another editor diff.

The account has received prior warnings from other editors on their talk page, including for unsourced content additions diff diff and a level-3 warning Level 3 Warning from the editor who reverted the talk comment directed at me.

Kindly requesting review of this account's conduct. Thank you 恋ren ｡☆ (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE, linked TAs demonstrate an ongoing pattern of harassment and were previously blocked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Romanov loyalist, WP:VERIFY issues and combative attitude

Romanov loyalist (talk · contribs), a frequent editor of WP:CTOPS like WP:RUSUKR, seems to be unable to accept concepts such as WP:VERIFY and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.

When they made this edit on the Unmanned Systems Forces of Russia article they failed to include a source for the update they wished to make, or even add the information to the article body, which since it concerns the commander of a military branch, is obviously needed per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I noticed another editor had recently been in contact with them on their talk page regarding their lack of edit summaries and use of WP:RS, so I reverted the edit and pointed out the issue, which evidently is still ongoing and they had not even responded to in the first place.

Their response is to accuse me of "making ignorant comments" and restore their (unsourced) edit, claiming the source was on the article (it was not).

What followed was an unproductive continuation of the discussion, where they keep insisting I am being aggressive (note the above immediate response of making ignorant comments when their edit was reverted) and picking a fight for no reason, while failing to produce any guidelines or policy supporting their own arguments. TylerBurden (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion was unproductive because I pointed out how you are incorrect, and instead of acknowledging my explanations, you provided bad-faith responses and became even more aggressive. From what I've seen, it seems that you frequently get into petty and aggressive arguments with other users over relatively small issues. Romanov loyalist (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

How is failing to follow WP:VERIFY on a WP:CTOP article a "relatively small issue"? It was unproductive precisely because you insist there is no need to follow article standards, or even be receptive to editor feedback in general, as shown by your continued disregard for basic etiquette like edit summaries. Your refusal to accept actual guidelines is why we are here, because you will evidently not listen to me no matter how many links to actual policy you are shown. TylerBurden (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I explained how I followed the guidelines, and you only replied with pettiness, aggression, and bad-faith comments that refused to acknowledge any of the points I was making. This is not the first time I've seen you do things like this. Romanov loyalist (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You haven't explained it, because you can't violate a guideline and then say you followed it, it's almost as if you are not aware these pages actually documenting them exist despite the numerous links. You haven't provided a single link in the discussion to anything supporting what you are saying, so like I said, let's see what others think. TylerBurden (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I made a basic and benign edit to update a military unit commander; you reverted the edit and left a message on my talk page attacking me and being hostile right away ("seems like you're still not listening to this"), claiming it is unsourced even though I added the source on the commander's article (which is not out of line with how military unit/branch articles are often updated on Wikipedia). When I asked you to not make ignorant comments in response to your hostility at the start of the interaction, you accused me of being aggressive, and referred to links without addressing the substance of any points I brought up. When I pointed out the inconsistencies, you made bad-faith and aggressive remarks. Romanov loyalist (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

A benign edit would be fixing a typo, anything involving WP:BLP needs a source (on the actual article), even disregarding other cited guidelines. Since you insist on me being the "aggressive" one in this interaction, I can only really say let's wait for opinions outside the two of us. TylerBurden (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I added the source on the commander's article But you did not add the source on Unmanned Systems Forces of Russia, which means that edit does, in fact, fail WP:V. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I made exactly the same kind of edit to update United States Army several months ago, when the Army chief of staff was replaced, and nobody reverted my edit or said anything about it. The circumstances on that article are exactly the same. Romanov loyalist (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors constantly make edits which contravene guidelines and policies, and those errors are not always (perhaps even not very often) pointed out. This is true even of meaningful changes to important articles. But when a problematic edit is indeed pointed out, it is of utmost importance that that is taken seriously, because that is the only way this project maintains any semblance of functionality. The fact that some of your more problematic edits were not pointed out does not mean that your less problematic edits are not, indeed, problematic.

Please note that you are repeatedly ignoring it when it is pointed out to you that your edits are contravening guidelines, and instead pointing out other cases where guidelines are broken. This will not, and should not, get you anywhere.

Please just try to take the following upon yourself:

1. When you add something to Wikipedia, make sure you also add a source that supports it;
2. Make sure that source is WP:RS;
3. Make an edit summary that helps other editors understand more or less what it is that you did, so that they don't have to look at the diff to have any idea what you did.

I'm sure that you can contribute a whole lot to this project if you take these relatively simple commitments upon yourself, and I hope that you can just do that and leave this whole thing behind you.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

User:PowrotKrola reversions and refusing to engage

PowrotKrola (talk · contribs) has been around for a few years, but has never once edited an article talk page. Recently they've been reverting changes that were made for MOS purposes. Basically per MOS:SMALL (which is part of the accessibility MOS), font text on a page should never drop below 85% of the page default. These edits are purely to remove small tags that are being used inside a template that is already set to 85%, so the small tagged text would be smaller than the permitted accessible font size.

This has been explained to them in both edit summaries, and on their talk page, but they refuse to acknowledge anything and just reinstate the small text against the MOS with zero explanation. They will not respond on their talk page or in any other way on this issue other than reverting. In fact the only time they've ever used their talk page was for another MOS explanation where they basically dismissed the issue, refused to acknowlede any guideline with "major cities are linked in every single mma record, so take your “guideline” somewhere else :)" and refused to accept what other editors were telling them. And I think I can count on one hand the amount of times they've used an edit summary in their 2300+ mainspace edits. Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Account for sole unsourced additions

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

---

~2026-25475-59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP ~2026-25475-59 consistently makes unsourced additions to pages, he has 26 edits and ALL of them are unsourced. I don't think I need diffs to provide, he has a few edits, and all of them are unsourced, pick one you want ig. Not sure if it required a direct punishment, which it possibly does, although I still find it important to report here, just in case. At least as an alert. Jako96 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Block evasion from user James Bond Fan 2001

I don't have the full context to this, but user @James Bond Fan 2001 has been evading a block as per comments from @MikeAllen. I don't know who this user is but all I know is that this guy has been going about making edits and evading the block. Hopefully Mike can help clarify this and block this user. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Update: I have found he is a sock of @~2026-24776-22 as per this discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Multiplivision&diff=prev&oldid=1367160770

I have opened up a sockpuppet investigation.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/~2026-24776-22 NarutoSan6000 (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The original account was blocked due to many reasons, including making harmful comments towards other users as shown here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:~2026-34492-37&diff=1359165353&oldid=1359164877

They also have been erasing comments from other users:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Multiplivision&diff=prev&oldid=1367160770 NarutoSan6000 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, ~2026-24776-22 was blocked on 13 June by User:ToBeFree with the block rationale Your use of multiple temporary accounts has (intentionally or not) evaded scrutiny for your actions and you have edit warred. Please create an account, or log into an existing one, to continue editing. It appears that if James Bond Fan 2001 is the same user as the TA, then they have done exactly what the blocking admin suggested. So the next question - since they haven't been evading a block, have they been doing anything else problematic? Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. They constantly add unsourced content with no regards to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Mike Allen 23:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  The user has only one kind blue notice about this being a potential problem on their talk page, and the ANI section here does not contain a single diff of evidence about this specific behavior. I'll block for 31 hours because I do see the issue and the user has a history of issues, but it's not sockpuppetry and far less dramatic than it may have seemed at first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Their whole contribution history page is the evidence. Mike Allen 23:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, refusing to engage, and indiscriminate reverting by User:AddedUpdatePoster

i am requesting administrator intervention regarding an editor who is indiscriminately blind-reverting all of my constructive edits on the UFC 331 page without using edit summaries or engaging on the Talk page.

i initially attempted to fix outdated citations and bout ordering in the "Announced bouts" section (such as updating a link that pointed to an old Oliveria booking instead of the newly confirmed Ruffy bout—a fighter, Arman Tsarukyan, was scheduled to fight Oliveira initially. another user correctly changed this to Ruffy, but kept the old Oliveira vs. Arman citation. i removed and updated said citation). i did this in accordance to the official ufc website. when the user reverted me without an edit summary, i paused and opened a thread on the article’s talk page to discuss it, close to an hour ago at the time of writing this. i also pinged them directly on their user talk page.

while waiting for a response, avoiding an edit war, i moved to separate sections of the article to perform basic copy-editing and fix clear grammatical errors. the user has completely ignored both talk page messages and is instead actively stalking my contributions to the page, blanket rolling back every single unrelated change I made. their revert of my copy editing edit did include some of their own change which were unrelated to reverting mine, but in changing some parts of the page i did not touch, they decided to revert every change i made.

diffs:

• (grammar) reverting a tense correction from "is postponed" to "was postponed" and reverting an unencyclopedic word choice ("is actually scheduled") and reverting a fighter's ring name (changing "Ozzy Diaz" back to "Osman Diaz" despite the official UFC profile explicitly using "Ozzy")
• reverting every single change in my edit made to update citations, top-to-bottom bout announcements, when i used the UFC’s official site as a citation.

the user appears to have a language barrier, as seen on their user talk page where they seem to have issues with english communication, and have been warned for using too-close paraphrasing, presumably from translation tools. they are using blind reverts, it seems, to maintain article ownership. another editor, User:Marty2Hotty, has edited the page in the same areas in which i have, doing copy editing and changing the spelling of a fighter’s name, as i did. my edits were reverted in minutes (just two mins for the first one, to the Announced bouts section, and six mins for the copy editing outside the announced bouts section). it has been several minutes since Marty made similar edits to i, and has not been reverted (as i am continuously editing this notice, it has still not been reverted; Marty has made 3 contributions including a most recent heavy copy edit which is still undisputed).

i have stopped editing the page entirely to avoid an edit war, but the page is currently being left with bad grammar, incorrect fighter names, and broken citations due to this user's disruptive actions and refusal to engage. i request that an admin review the page history and advise. thank you.

update: this issue has been resolved on AUP’s talk page. the user explained it was an accidental edit conflict during simultaneous editing and apologized for the grammar rollback. i have a clear understanding of the project's formatting guidelines now. this report can be closed. thanks.

frankie they/them (t • c) 00:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi. We usually use independent sources in the "announced bouts" section like mma junkie, etc. UFC's official source is used under the "fight card" for the events page. We do our best to use independent sources for announced bouts, but those sources usually refer to the X or UFC official announcements anyways. I am not sure you are referring to this.

As for AutoAddedPoster, he is a reliable long-term contributer in the MMA world. He might not add details to the edit reasons, so if you have any concerns, I encourage you to go to his talk page to talk things out. He is very receptive to feedback.

As for Osman vs Ozzy Diaz - we, as MMA editors, have used Sherdog - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_UFC_fighters#Notes/key to refer to fighters' names. It was agreed upon to use third-party independent sources instead of taking everything from the UFC page. You are quite new to editing pages on here. I learned all of this a couple of years ago, so if you have questions, please let me know. AutoAddedPoster is a long-term editor following the rules. Charles ended up not fighting on the card despite numerous reports, but that is noteworthy to mention.

https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Osman-Diaz-156965 as you can see here, Ozzy goes by Osman and Ozzy is his nickname. on the list of current fighters page, we follow that. There are occasional exceptions but this is what we usually go by. If grammar needs to be fixed, you can fix it, add a comment and let him know. He might not have seen your reasons.

Thank you! Marty2Hotty (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

okay, that covers it. however, “usually” seems to be a bit of a reach here, considering it implies that it is not always the case, and i was simply reordering bouts and updating the citations. i’m not sure what reason there is to revert grammar fixes in copy editing (excluding the “Osman” and “Ozzy” dispute—i mean, regarding the grammar fixes in my second reverted edit), though, and it has been an hour since i mentioned AUP on the article’s talk page, and about 50 since i mentioned him on his own talk page. frankie they/them (t • c) 00:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

User Wikigora7869288, not adhering to NPOV, legal threats, and possible COI

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

---

User:Wikigora7869288 has engaged in repeated disruptive editing on the Mary (2024 film) article by repeatedly adding a non-notable role to the cast list without a sufficient secondary source. Their rationale for adding the role is, "It is important to note that MARY was entirely shot on location in the Southern region of Morocco, where Kamal Moummad hails from. He is also the only heavily featured Black actor in this film. For representation purposes, it is crucial to duly credit Kamal Moummad for his work in this film. By doing so, Wikipedia users can fully appreciate the growing role that Morocco and its actors play in the global film industry," which is against WP:NOT .

Their editing history suggests that they are only on Wikipedia to promote the actor in question, which suggests a COI. When directed to the COI policy, the user became uncivil and threatened legal action . Mellamelina (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Mellamelina,

They are a new editor, they have only been active here for a week, did you try talking to them before opening a complaint on them on such an active noticeboare which is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems? Most new editors need a while to learn the rules here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It would also help if you supplied a diff of an actual legal threat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You mean, besides "we're forwarding this to our legal advisor"? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

INDEFfed for DE which encompasses promotion, legal threats and RGW. Star Mississippi 03:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Repeated changing convertion values for lenth and temperature with US standards in multiple articles without any proper discussion plus kept ignoring other editors' reminders over mass reversions

• ~2026-41780-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• special:diff/prev/1367901227
• special:diff/prev/1367900595
• special:diff/prev/1367900295
• special:diff/prev/1367900046
• special:diff/prev/1367899734

• etc. (see more in the contribs log)

Gzyeah (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Well the first of those diffs is about a US place, and in US place articles the primary distance units typically are miles, not kilometers, generally (and square miles for large areas; acres for smaller areas etc.) The second diff, which you linked twice, doesn't do what the post topic here describes, although I would agree it's not a particularly helpful edit...but it's not terribly unhelpful either. ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned, the person should raise a seperate discussion about such changes in order to follow WP:NOPOV especially when facing questions from other editors, and improve his/her work on typos by referring to WP:MOS as they pointed out. Gzyeah (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gzyeah, the user you're replying to is correct - the first two edits are to US places, and per MOS:UNIT, "In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.)". This appears to comprise many of their edits. That being said, it would be great if they responded here. I've left a note on their talk page. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-40817-33: By the way, are you the same person reported? Kindly clarify, thanks. Gzyeah (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Gzyeah. I see nothing linking ~2026-40817-33 (talk · contribs) with ~2026-41780-68 (talk · contribs). That said, bearing in mind that I'm just an editor with one admin tool, I agree there's an issue with ~2026-41780-68 rearranging numerical values for tenuous reasons.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I am here to collaborate and edit while having utmost respect for policies and guidelines, but I am rewarded with orders, warnings and threats (if all of them are reasonable, I wouldn't be here)

Hello,

I joined wikipedia last year when the local railway division in a place in live got changed. And updated it. Recently, I have lots of time and I don't have anything to do, so I got used to editing wikipedia.

And I've seen various wikipedia pages and discussions, I know wiki runs on policies.

I can be blocked, removed, kicked out if I'm doing anything wrong. Because wiki runs on policies and not someone's personal feelings. Totally absolutely fair.

So the reason I am here is primarily because today morning I logged in and saw that I'm blocked for moving pages. I don't understand the blocker's reason to warrant such severe measure. The present blocker has previously blocked me before for "disruptive editing", I am new here so I asked what happened exactly, like, tell me this is wrong and I'll understand. When I asked them, they didn't reply to why I was blocked. Day before yesterday this comment was received. and that comment is from someone who has disagreement with edits I make and they refused to talk and told me to not come their talk page. Ok. I didn't go. Fine.

Recently IndiGo CEO changed and I changed the CEO name and noticed that co-founder of IndiGo like Rakesh Gangwal didn't have an article. And created an article, while creating an article, some sources like this - https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/rahul-bhatia-terms-rakesh-gangwal-s-allegations-as-baseless-119071001402_1.html is changing into https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/cong-mlas-illegally-confined-in-mumbai-hotel-aicc-to-cops-119071001402_1.html when I am pasting it and also the URLs copied from ghost archive and other websites and loading on archive but not loading on normal articles.

So some editor has yesterday contacted me regarding that issue and I was talking to them regarding that. Suddently this person comes again and says don't do this don't do that. I don't have any problem with them telling me if there's any mistake, I'm totally up for knowing what wrong might've happened. But they engage aggressively in that thread, they previously nominated some articles I created, said I'm canvassing when I asked a reviewer on what must have happened so I can fix that issue. This person who is aggressive at me didn't tell me anything. So I tried improving it and undid their redirect.

CNMall41 and me spoke and it is completed. CNMall41 says you did this you did that, but they never said this specific thing is wrong, like, which page is wrong tell me, I will understand, not a problem.

Yesterday when he came to my talk page, I thought he warned me by mistake, because of the latest edit being mine, he might've thought I have created the page and must've come to me. Because their immediate edit after redirecting is directed towards me.

Then CNMall41 said, he warned correct person only pointing to Rasha Thadani AfD page. We engaged in conversation where he asked me not to create new pages etc.. The thing with that person is, they don't say where I did wrong. And I don't know why out of the blue they come to my page as well, because they came because of Rasha Thadani which is in Afd process.

After that I continued normal editing, today morning the person who previously blocked me said I am blocked from moving pages - User talk:Wikipicked#c-Star Mississippi-20260806030400-Blocked.

It is also important to note that the blocker previously rudely told me that I'm wiki lawyering User talk:Wikipicked/Archive 1#c-Wikipicked-20260717050100-CNMall41-20260716200500.

What am I supposed to do when I am literally new on wikipedia and CNMall41 repeatedly says you may have another account, tell the account usernames. I don't have any, I said that and made my point clear, and basically told him CNMALL41 i don't have any other account.

Based on this I wonder if this present block has anything to do with my conversation with CNmall41 yesterday and I seriously think this came out of nowhere.

I can literally give you all every URL of convesations with CNMall41 and Star Mississippi.

Bash me and tell me if I am wrong I will improve. But when I am asking they don't reply and on the sudden morning they come and block refusing to explain.

Pinging @CNMall41 (I know you love this because you probably hate me for being on Wikipedia), @Star Mississippi (I don't know why you don't reply)

All tell me get out of Wikipedia (if I am actually doing a mistake) if you don't like me here I will go.

Made TLDR so uninvolved editors will see the picture:

• I logged in after so long and created Dragon (2027 film) and participated in the subsequent AfD (this article is deleted so I don't have diff, but AfD is here, Afd notice is here)
• When dragon when nominated CNMall41 cited Raaka deletion. I told him that I improved and addressed concerns before moving Dragon.
• Created Raaka and participated in deletion discussions.
• Created Rasha Thadani, first it was redirected.
• On CNMall41's talk page over this I asked not to come to talk page on it.
• Sought clarification from Mariamnei regarding review because they said its fine when reviewing and even left "Nice start" on my talk page.
• CNMall41 said the above post I did on Mariamnei's talk page amounts to canvassing.
• And whem Mariamnei said it's not canvassing and asked about the actual content issue, no reply.
• I improved and removed redirect and later CNMall41 nominated at AfD, no problem.
• Then a 31 hour block from Star Mississippi for disruptive editing.
• I asked multiple times for the specific conduct that was considered disruptive because I want to know what's happening and if they don't tell it may repeat right.
• CNMall41 later joined that discussion, raised concerns about previously deleted pages and suggested I may have prior accounts, I already answered them twice before about this.
• Submitted Fly91 through AfC and discussed sourcing with other editors.
• Created Rahul Bhatia (businessman), citation issues were pointed out and corrected.
• During that discussion, CNMall41 advised me to stop creating mainspace articles and instead use AfC, warning that ANI/COIN could follow. 1 2 3 4
• Explained that Rasha Thadani had been created directly in mainspace rather than moved from draft.
• Continued editing normally.
• Received a page move restriction from Star Mississippi.

Edit: I want to clarify that my issue is not that my articles were challenged, redirected, or nominated for deletion. They're perfectly normal processes and I never said I have any problem with that. The issue is that I believe the interactions from the users I mentioned gradually shifted from discussing the articles to discussing me as an editor, while I was still trying to understand the specific conduct that led to the sanctions. Instead of saying this is the problem, they come, say, You are a UPE, you are bad, when I asked which disruptive edits have I made so that I won't make again, no reply. And then boom, sanction, earlier block, I understand. The page move block especially after yesterday conversation is concerning.

Wikipicked (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

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

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To clarify, this is not an unblock request. I'm raising concerns about the conduct over the warnings and interactions, and I'm seeking clarification of the specific actions that were said to justify them, rather than asking for the restriction to be lifted.

Wikipicked (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Talk to the admin who is sanctioning you first. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not a block appeal, as I mentioned above. Wikipicked (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

"This ball probably does not mind being bitten, but newcomers do."
— WP:BITE

• I think this is more of a competence issue where an editor is being disruptive, sure, but still acting in good faith. They are trying to communicate, yet somehow being ignored. What we are really forgetting here is WP:DONTBITE. Newbies are not expected to know how everything works right away. When they are trying to communicate in good faith, being told "it becomes exhausting discussing this with you, stay off my talk page" is extremely rude. We seem to be forgetting to assume good faith. Maybe the block was deserved, but it still feels like a harsh "get lost" when no one is actually communicating to help resolve the problem, especially with a new editor. Either way, I would support a two-way Interaction Ban between User:CNMall41 and User:Wikipicked for now. — Raihanur (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• 'Wikipicked, you are clearly not happy with your experience editing on this project. But as it states at the top of this noticeboard, 'This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

It would help if you didn't present a narrative of you discontent but focused on specific incidents with evidence including diffs and what remedies you are seeking by coming to ANI. Can you break down this narrative of unhappiness to 3 or 4 incidents which we can then investigate? That would be much more straight-foward to respond to than a narrative of what you think is wrong with this platform. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Liz Ok sorry, I'll tell you the incidents.

Firstly I didn't understand why Raaka AfD was quoted to me when Dragon was nominated for deletion. Because I improved Dragon a lot before publishing, it's not what CNMall41 removed before.

Then I created an article for Srinivasa Mangapuram lead actress Rasha Thadani, before creating the article, I went through both the old AfDs. And even in edit summary I said I went through previous discussions. CNMall41 redirected the page. I asked him why and what he meant go for Afd, he said not to come to talk page.

Then I went to reviewer talk page to ask about this, generally I wouldn't, but reviewer said the article was a nice start on my talk page, then CNMall41 said I am canvassing and I am not disclosing previous accounts. This is the second time they asked (1st time) and when I further asked on what the issue with Rasha Thadani he didn't reply. I was like, yeah, they may be seeing a 1000 people like me so he may misunderstand.

Then I was blocked for "disruptive editing". I repeatedly asked what specific edits of mine or my behavior are considered disruptive and did not receive an answer back and instead blocker pointed to CNMall41 message and said, don't wikilawyer. What am I supposed to say when I am asked a question and answer, am I supposed to not answer? Please refer to these - 1 2 3

Yesterday CNMall41 out of the blue joined the blocking discussion (also see edit summary) and that's where I thought he misunderstood I created that article because the last edit on that specific article is mine he came right at me after redirecting this and never actually spoke to the user who created it, CNMall41 and that user interacter too but that has nothing to do with me. I said I asked the blocker not you and don't discuss this because he and me already had a history of disagreements.

and recently, I created an article on Indigo co-founder, Rahul Bhatia (businessman), someone had problems and they came to my talk page, I was talking to them, and CNMall41 very angrily jumped into this discussion telling me don't do this don't do that while I am actually talking to someone on improving it. All CNMall41's mesages say, don't do this, don't do that, I warned the correct user only, if you create one more thing I will see you at ANI or COIN. I am not the only one with problems with you this that. Refer - 1 2 3 4

And today I woke up to another block by the same user who previously blocked me and didn't reply when I asked why.

@Star Mississippi appears again today (like how he came after Rasha Thadani discussion to block me for the first time, after discussion with CNMall41 on Marianmei's talk page) after yesteday discussion with CNMall41 on my talk page and blocks me from moving pages while saying that "Stop editing like a bull in a China shop", "I re-thought the article space block and removed it, but if the poor content continues, you will lose access there.", also said that I have been disruptive through my tenure. While I am literally trying to understand what I did wrong.

After all this, I think I have been mistreated. CNMall41 and Star Mississippi get personal. If they stick to content I don't have problem. They say you did this you did that, but no reply. No problem with saying that too, but they don't say what exactly. Dismissing someone while blocking seriously. Wikipicked (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Wikipicked: As I understand it, you are blocked from moving pages, but are able to edit articles. Is that correct?

I see that some time in July 2026, you set up automatic talk page archiving. That is a step in the right direction. Often editors send helpful messages giving advice on what mistakes editors are making; it makes it easier for you if these messages get archived instead of deleted (which is what you had previously been doing). A lot of editors use template messages for this - they contain helpful links explaining things - yes, it is true that they are also threatening - it is a "carrot and stick" approach: help if you want to fix problems and be a better editor, and a stick if you do not.

In July you got a block, in part because you appeared to be using AI-generated text. Do you understand why you should not be using AI to generate stuff for Wikipedia?-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can edit articles. Yeah, I didn't know that archiving is there. I thought its like those monitors you see in fast food chains, order received, order completed and its removed from that. But later I saw others using archive bot and added it.

Yes yes, I used to take help of AI because although I know english. I'm not a pro, like, when complicated words come, I know some, I don't know some. So to see what I am saying is going to read as what I meant, I asked AI to translate my english message to my own language, and then I modify if any complicated word I specifically used is not sounding like what I actually meant. I totally understand I shouldn't use AI to generate. I read on it after a user showed me WP:LLM. Wikipicked (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

An interaction ban would be patently absurd at this point. Asking someone to stay off your talk page is absolutely allowed. From reading the history, it's this editor who consistently raises the heat in these interactions, by becoming extremely accusatory as a default mode when they don't understand something that is explained to them. And that continues in this discussion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

There was reason to be suspicious as this editor recreates articles that have been created in the past by sockfarms and been deleted. CNMall asked a simple question as to whether Wikipicked used multiple accounts, a perfectly normal thing to ask. Wikipicked responded with: If you believe there is an account policy issue, please use the proper venue.

Wikipicked talk page is absolutely full of editors raising issues with their editing, and Wikipicked being completely unhelpful, and rarely acknowledging anything, and generally responding with hostility.

This discussion should be hatted, with Wikipicked reminded to use the AFC process to submit drafts. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs

CNMall41 asked me thrice, not once despite me answering it already.

Rasha Thadani (I created it after I created Srinivasa Mangapuram, she's a heroine in that film), Fly91, I created it because it is a regional airline which literally flies even into nearby airport where I live also its an Afc not mainspace and reviewer is looking into it ig. I edit aviation, movies, companies, laws. Other films, those films are in my language and random stuff like how everyone does. Only Rasha Thadani was deleted earlier and I went through both AFDs before creating it again and mentioned it in edit summary.

You're overstating full of editors raising issues, dismissing me which is why exactly I am here. Also I like it how you go silent on all the other incidents I've shown. I am not here over content dispute. It's because of the mistreatment due to which I am here. It's ok if you don't see anything with it. You can correct me. I never complained that CNMall41 asked me a specific thing. Wikipicked (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

These incidents are basically normal interactions that you react very poorly to. This is a community managed project, so when people are doing things improperly, other people speak up to try and fix the problem. From what I've seen -- and I've never interacted with you before as far as I'm aware -- you have acted in a way in which you appear very resistant to criticism and very quick to take offense. When there were problems with the things you were moving into mainspace, this was your reaction:

I will continue participating in Wikipedia well within accordance with its policies and guidelines including creating new articles and moving drafts to mainspace where I believe they satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion standards. I do not require another editor's permission to do so. If you think any of my edits or my conduct violates any policy, you are free to raise the matter at the appropriate noticeboard. I will respond there if necessary.

Instead of discussing an issue, you simply told another editor who was rightly calling out the problems with your actions that you weren't going to change a thing and encouraged them to escalate the situation instead. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That's your opinion which is contrary to mine. I don't think the overall scenario is normal. I didn't come here on single issue. I saw a pattern. That's why I bought it here. Also the message you cited is one of the last two messages I had with CNMall41. Wikipicked (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

"That's your opinion which is contrary to mine." You keep responding like this, and that's exactly the problem. For example, when CNMall41 told you that you are not "well within" our guidelines, you responded "I disagree. Whether I'm within the guidelines or not, that's decided through community discussion and consensus." To put it bluntly: That's the wrong answer. CNMall41 has been around for about 12.5 years, has over 110,000 edits, and has been blocked once (for 36 hours). You have been around for 1.5 years, have 1,800 edits, and have three blocks. We don't have a formal hierarchy, but you should really listen to what users say that have much more experience than you. Your standard response when someone tells you to stop doing something seems to be "I disagree". That's not going to work. You're formally correct that a single user can't tell you what to do, but if you never listen to a single highly experienced user and instead demand a discussion and consensus, it's likely that the community will decide that's too much work in the long run, and you'll simply be blocked for good. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Isn't it the whole point @Chrisahn. I totally get why you see that as a problem. The earlier conversations are totally fine. But the problem is they keep doing something to the articles where I contribute and when I ask them, they don't respond to it and come into another discussion and say, "you are the problem". And later literally block like how page block happen.

Why didn't they respond to the actual content issue which I am genuinely trying to understand and address? Those both messages you're referring to are the literal last two messages I sent CNMall41. I will fully listen like how I was told by Thilsebatti and others including CNMall41 and StarMissisippi. That message you're referring to come after a lot of interaction with them. If you actually look at the specific thread where the message you're citing is, I'm talking and trying to address problem with Thilsebatti, did I say, no, you can't say this etc.? No right. The conversation was normal, and Thilsebatti came and said, I may even withdraw nomination. Now that's called collabortion. After that CNMall41 entered, I won't repeat. I am fully willing to learn or even ready to be accept a mentor. I literally listened and made changes to Srinivasa Mangapuram, Rasha Thadani, Fly91 together. Even in 2026 Jantar Mantar protests you can see me. I collaborated in talk pages and all. All my request moves demonstrate that. Kotia page is another example. Wikipicked (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Wikipicked: as it happens, I fully concur with CoffeeCrumbs, so it's not just their opinion.

I would suggest that you drop this now, and spend some time thinking about collaborative working, and what you can do to help better facilitate that. Not because you're the only one who needs to be better at it (I for one do also), but because you're the only one whose behaviour you can improve. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I'm fully up for collaboration and learning. Wikipicked (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You initiated a discussion on a noticeboard. I offered my opinion, as someone does in a discussion. Sometimes opinions differ. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok @CoffeeCrumbs Wikipicked (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• People may be interested in WP:AINB#User:Wikipicked. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Note the examples listed there happened after their 31 hr temp block on 24 July for LLM use. Mainspace block needed imo Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocking admin reply, it seems Wikipicked has retired, but dropping a note here for accountability. Wikipicked, I did not reply because I went to sleep. We appear to be in different time zones. That said, absolutely nothing in this thread convinces me either block was incorrect. They may not mean to be disruptive, but the poor ability to communicate and overuse of LLMs do not help. Whether or not its paid editing or COI is moot, the articles will be handled at AfD. The page move block was to stop them from creating more when they do not understand notability guidelines. Star Mississippi 13:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

User:PeppermintSA - 2 years of AI use and lying about it

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

See the previous AI noticeboard entry for more context, but the gist:

Lots and lots of AI articles since 2024. In May 2025, after they were warned for AI use, they said that Yes, I've used AI bots, particularly ChatGpt merely for formatting and restyling the content., then they said: I wont use AI anymore. Learnt my lesson. My goal was never to publish hallucinations.

Sounds cooperative, except that both those statements are false. The former is false because their 2024-25 AI articles appear to go well beyond "formatting and restyling" the content, given prose such as Hotel Stari Grad stands as a testament to Sarajevo's rich cultural and architectural heritage. Its continuous adaptation over centuries—from an Ottoman-era han to a modern hotel—illustrates the city's historical evolution and resilience. The building's designation as a National Monument underscores its importance in Bosnia and Herzegovina's cultural landscape. (Hotel Stari Grad). The latter is false because they did in fact continue to use AI, which can be verified both in the edit filter logs (e.g., WP:OAICITE in Special:AbuseLog/43596218), or by noticing how their articles have now started to sound like 2026 AI output and not 2025. They also continue to make edits at high speed, e.g., Special:PermanentLink/1366613316 being created in 7 minutes.

Their most recent edit was about a week ago. They've been warned twice for AI since WP:NOLLM took effect, and didn't answer either time. So that's why we're here now. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, they were further warned March 2026 and May 2026 to no response. Their most recent spate of article creation was 29 July, when they created 4 articles. Asim Bradić was created 7 minutes after the previous one and had WP:AIREDCAT. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

EEng being proved right yet again? Inspiring! BrandNewSaint (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Temporary accounts reverting and going against MOS

~2026-42613-85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / ~2026-43317-99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (very obviously the same person) is constantly reverting my edits without reason, and going completely against the Manual of Style. They are very clearly going through my edits to find pages to revert/edit against my edits, as it can be seen that they have removed my edits from multiple pages I have edited recently.

They have refused to give any reason for not following MOS, they are not cooperating in discussions, and are instead making random, crazy claims about me without any evidence.

They are being extremely disruptive, removing mine and others edits, completely against the MOS. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Too many TAs on an IP

~2026-43185-48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP has a tad too many TAs. And, from what I saw, this one is performing unsourced edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• If the TA expires or the user clears cookies, it will create a new TA account next time they edit. If they are adding unsourced edits as opposed to vandalism, please warn them as normal, and they can be sanctioned according to policy. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)