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

FlightDelivery - persistent and repeated unsourced content addition

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

---

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)

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

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)

One more, and I've already fixed this one myself (Special:Diff/1368014825).

Until August 2025 the Peter Thiel article had this: "Palantir's first backer was the Central Intelligence Agency's venture capital arm In-Q-Tel. The company steadily grew and in 2015 was valued at $20 billion, with Thiel being the company's largest shareholder." Sourced to Forbes and TechCrunch.

An IP came to the talk page with one objection (Talk:Peter Thiel/Archive 3#In-Q-Tel NOT Palantir's First Backer): In-Q-Tel wasn't the first backer, it joined at Series C in 2008. That was correct. It was one word.

Deamonpen deleted the whole passage instead (Special:Diff/1304728302), removing the valuation, the shareholding and both sources, with the summary "Deleted the In-Q-Tel part for the moment... See Talk". That was a year ago. It was never restored.

The fix was easy. CNBC wrote in 2022 that Palantir's early business "came directly from the FBI, the NSA, and even the CIA, whose venture arm In-Q-Tel was one of the company's earliest backers". That wording has no "first" problem in it. The source was never used in the article.

The talk page is where it gets worse. The CIA connection wasn't explained as a fact that needed a small correction (and thus deleted). It was mainly treated as a story or legend someone (some groups) made up: "they want to build the company's legend (but it is sometimes used by their opponents too, because then other legends come: In-Q-Tel = CIA, and the CIA is evil or something)". That isn't in any source but presented on the talk page very persuasively. That's what the editor thinks is going on, and a sourced paragraph was deleted on that basis.

So, finalizing, until today, "CIA" appeared in the article only once. It was in the sentence saying Whitney Webb "has spread theories that link Thiel and Palantir to Epstein, Mossad, CIA". Deamonpen added that, and restored it after another editor tried to delted it. As a conclusio, the sourced fact was gone and the conspiracy version stayed.

After this one I'm not sure this is only a sourcing problem. A lot of small edits, each kind of okay on its own, all going the same way. ~~~~ Norlk (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

one more Special:Diff/1323030413 removed a $250,000 donation to the Trump Victory Committee as "small donation". A $25,900 donation from 2010 still remains in the same section. Norlk (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry? What is so important about the need to list every single backer of just one of Peter Thiel's companies in Peter Thiel's main page, which is a large article already, while we already have another large article that is Palantir, in which I have added lots of details over the time, but others think these are too much and now keep it at:

"There are at least four versions of the story of Palantir's founding, but they all say that Thiel and Karp produced software that others found applications for.

According to The Wall Street Journal, when Palantir launched in 2004, there were three investors other than Thiel and Karp but little interest from venture capital firms, so Thiel and his venture fund largely bankrolled the initial $30 million cost. CIA-affiliated venture capital firm In-Q-Tel invested about $2 million. According to Techcrunch, Oakhouse Partners led Palantir's $7.5 million Series A (June 2006) and REV led its $10.5 million Series B (November 2006). In its early years, Palantir maintained founder control by declining to offer board seats to investors, including In-Q-Tel. This practice continued through subsequent funding rounds."

See the original addition of mine before that, which did mention the In-Q-Tel in several places ; my addition that the In-Q-Tel is associated with the CIA.

See Palantir#2003–2008: Founding and early years.

I did not bother to add the part it was mainly Thiel who bankrolled his own company in Thiel's article either.

There are two things about the CIA connection: One, there was the investment, which actually existed, but the importance of which is sometimes exaggerated (because In-Q-Tel invests in lots and lots of startups, and there is no evidence they paid special attention to Palantir.) Second, Peter Thiel, and later Whitney Webb, did and do create myths that exaggerate the connection. See also this part and the article it uses as references.Deamonpen (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The $25,900 was to Meg Whitman, and it was 2010, and thus reflects the target of Peter Thiel's support donation in that period. I kept it for Whitman and not for the sum. For Donald Trump there was already the sum that counted in millions mentioned before that: "On 15 October 2016, Thiel announced a $1.25 million donation in support of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign." And the reduction was done because other users complained about the size of the article, and because I wanted to add and keep the parts that you will see in Peter Thiel#Other business enterprises (about the firm 1789) and Peter Thiel#Anduril Industries (current version still keeps my additions intact, which talk about the financial connection between Thiel and Trump/Trump's family through Anduril and 1789; and btw both sections were written largely by me anyway, except for some companies listed in the smaller subsections of the Other business enterprises section), which are imho much more abnormal and questionable than the $250,000 he openly gave to a president who was already in office.-Deamonpen (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Norlk, I think it is easy for other readers to understand that the part put in quotation marks is the reporter paraphrasing Barak's words." According to Barak" # "Barak claims: '[...]'". If I wanted to give the impression that Barak said exactly that, I wouldn't have left the "he and his wife and some security guards" part, but began the cut with "paid a three-hour visit", don't you think? It is my usual reaction that when other users complain about my paraphrasing and my interpretation, I will just copy-paste the important sentence from the text and put it in quotation marks. I must say at this point I feel that it's a bit hard to connect to your understanding of the matter.

Talking about always mastering the details and being loyal to materials. Sorry, I just tried to look at your history in hope that I could learn something from you:

• Your creation of the article on Unit X (book):

Unit X is a non‑fiction account of the U.S. Defense Innovation Unit, an organization established in 2015 to break through Pentagon bureaucracy and connect the U.S. military with modern technologies from Silicon Valley. The authors, Raj M. Shah and Christopher Kirchhoff, led a reboot of the unit. The book's timeline spans from middle 2010s till the 2023-2024.

Sorry, please tell me the part when it mentions the date 2015? It does not exist in the three sources you cited, nor in the main text (not even now). In fact, according to your Foreign Affairs source, this could not have happened before 2016: "In 2016, Shah, a former fighter pilot turned entrepreneur, and Kirchhoff, a technology strategist, took charge of what became the Defense Innovation Unit."

There is no part in the sources that mentions this, either:

The book's timeline spans from middle 2010s till the 2023-2024."

See the other sources provided: 1 2. Besides, the actual book does cover events before middle 2010s

Current revision does not provide more information either.

• Another article of yours, Supremacy (book), basically does not have citations for the main text, except for the reviews part (see the initial creation of the article too). I also don't understand the sentence

The book covers primarily the evolution of AI as a contest between various approaches towards AI on behalf of OpenAI and DeepMind (acquired by Google).

So, it is a contest between OpenAI and DeepMind, or a contest between "approaches" (of whom??) fighting on behalf of OpenAI or DeepMind??

• Another article of yours, Damien Félix (see also original one):

The duo plays all the instruments: Guinchard (percussion, bass, keyboard, vocals) and Félix (vocals, guitar, harmonica, percussion). Influenced by Robert Johnson, Skip James, The Kills, The Black Keys, the Jurassians with an American look deliver a greasy, energetic, and effective rock (La Grosse Radio).

There is no mention of such instruments in the reference article you cite. And there is no mention of Skip James either.

• The bold part (same article above) is also promotional and does not show that there is some author who makes the comment on the band. In this case, the reader will understand that this is Wikie voice:

In 2022, the album Les Myosotis was produced by Jim Spencer and recorded in Germany and England. An album elegant, sometimes brutal, serving alternative pop and rock enriched with oriental sounds and Latin percussion (Radio France).

And this is just me taking a quick look at it. Deamonpen (talk) 15:54, 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)

Dear Rsjaffe and Czarking0, I feel really tired, but please understand that the way I quoted Norlk's edits in other articles above is not an attempt to get that user banned, but an attempt to illustrate to Norlk that they are talking about standards against which they do differently in practice. I do actually side with them regarding some of my mistakes, but I do not understand the part that says I severely violate BLP standards, especially in comparison with Norlk and the other examples seen in the famous biographies mentioned above -- sorry but it has been some days and I have not seen anyone bother making a big deal about the names of children still existing on Zuckerberg's or Eric Trump's pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Rsjaffe, User:Czarking0, as I demonstrated above, until this moment I don't think that anyone with basic reading skills will ever deduce that the phrase "he and his wife..." came directly from Barak's mouth. The sentence shows that the source (CBC) take this information (put in "..." so that people would not say that I am changing the publication's implication) from Barak, and that is it. On the other hand, User:Norlk's sentence "In 2022, the album Les Myosotis was produced by Jim Spencer and recorded in Germany and England. An album elegant, sometimes brutal, serving alternative pop and rock enriched with oriental sounds and Latin percussion (Radio France)." in Damien Félix, that they refuse to address and to fix, equates Radio France's opinion (and it is not even clear that the "(Radio France)" part is meant to show the readers that this is the opinion of Radio France, but maybe the place where this album is performed??) with Wikivoice. I address my problems, while User:Norlk does not. Deamonpen (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Norlk, I have noticed that you have not replied or do anything about your edits that I have mentioned above yet, including the Damien Félix biography. Deamonpen (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

New BLP created 6 August, five days after the warning

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

Nathan Gettings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deamonpen published Nathan Gettings on 6 August 2026, two days ago. It is a BLP about a private person. I checked every source in it. Some of the sourcing is fine, but a lot of it is not, and one sentence says something about the subject that is simply not true. I will add more later.

1. The article says Gettings co-founded Skydio. Not true, he did not co-founded it.

From the lead: "Russian researchers also link Gettings to the military drone company Skydio as a co-founder."

Skydio was founded in 2014 by Adam Bry, Abraham Bachrach and Matt Donahoe. That is what our own Skydio article says, and it is what every source about the company says. Gettings has nothing to do with founding it. No reliable source anywhere connects him to it.

This was in the article from the very first save (Special:PermanentLink/1367942643) and it is still there.

2. What that source actually is

The citation in the article looks like this:

Artamonov, Sergey; Komartsov, Ilya; Prokhorova, Alina; Demeshev, Artem; Arsen, Arutyunyan (2023). Palantir Technologies Inc. p. 14.

Formatted that way it looks like an academic book with five authors and a page number. In the article body the same source is introduced as "Russian researchers". A reader has no way to tell it is anything else.

I downloaded the PDF and read the front matter. Here is what it says, word for word:

• Title page: "Palantir Technologies Inc. — Выпускная квалификационная работа" (a graduation project)
• "АВТОРЫ: Выпускники курса «Разведывательный анализ информации»: Артамонов Сергей, Комарцов Илья, Арутюнян Арсен, Прохорова Алина, Демешев Артем и др." — students of a course called "Intelligence analysis of information", and note the "и др.", meaning "and others". The document does not even list all of its own authors.
• "РУКОВОДИТЕЛЬ ПРОЕКТА: Ромачев Роман Владимирович", ver. 1.00, dated 06.07.2023
• Second page: "Этот материал подготовлен выпускниками курса «Разведывательный анализ информации». Автор программы: генеральный директор «Р-Техно» — Ромачев Р.В. © 2023г. Р-Техно ООО"
• Every single page carries the header "Частная разведывательная компания «Р-Техно»", the URL r-techno.com, and a Telegram handle, @rtechnocom.

So: R-Techno is a private intelligence firm in Russia. It sells paid training courses. The course was written by the firm's CEO. His students produced this PDF as their coursework. The firm holds the copyright, put the file on its own WordPress uploads folder, and stamped its sales channel on every page. There is no publisher or any ISBN or even an editor and of cource no peer review. No institution of any kind stands behind it. Nobody checked it before it went up and nobody will correct it if it is wrong. It is marketing material for a training course, maybe it's a propaganda piece, or fake, or whatever. The table of contents contains identifying data. This is an OSINT Russian-created dossier made on a foreign defence contractor and the people connected to it.

basic mistakes there Its paragraph on Gettings is five sentences long and I can check three of them:

• born 1982 — impossible against the 1995 and 1998 dates the article itself cites
• CTO of Founders Fund — not supported anywhere
• co-founder of Skydio — false

It also says he left Palantir in 2016, which is in not the 2012 date the article gives in the Palantir section, citing Steinberger. So the authoer of the wikipedia article treats this PDF as authoritative for a birth year and a company founding, and quietly ignores it where a real source disagrees.

WP:BLPSPS has no exceptions: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person." This is self-published pdf piece. The authors, the publisher and also the copyright holder are the same Russian organisation.

WP:BLPSOURCES says poorly sourced contentious material about a living person should be removed immediately, not tagged and not discussed first.

What's worse, the wikipedia article tells readers that a private American citizen co-founded a significant military drone company, sourced to an intelligence dossier written and published in Russia. I don't know what the intent was, but that is the kind of statement BLP rules are to stop. It is unverifiable, it is wrong, it is misleading, it is aiming to make problems for a living person and make the living person somehow connected to not a pleasant topics.

Finalizing. When the author of the wikipedia artcile is calling the authors to be "Russian researchers" in the article body is the last part of the problem. They are not researchers. They are students who paid for a course. Describing them in such a way, and formatting the citation as a book or real paper, gives the source a credibility it truly never had and makes it very hard for the next editor to spot.

The citation by the way appears 4 times in the article, including in the infobox, where it supports for the subject's full legal name.

One more example: A reliably sourced birth year was taken out and an unreliable one was put in.

Checking the history:

• Special:Diff/1367950862 (04:05) - Deamonpen adds "(1976 or 1977)", cited to The New Yorker, which said Gettings was 32 in 2009.
• Special:Diff/1367967094 (06:55) - Deamonpen removes it. Edit summary: "uncertain birth year, so..."
• Special:Diff/1367997966 (12:37) - 5.5 hours later, Deamonpen adds "A report by Russian researchers list his birth year as 1982", cited to the student PDF.

So the New Yorker figure was dropped for being uncertain, and the coursework pdf file (I described above) was kept. Norlk (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that is called a self-published book. A book/graduation thesis written by Oxford students and published by Oxford is not called self-published. And I don't think these authors can be called R-techno people either. R-techno is basically a company that help universities like Sevastopol to train graduate students for master programs and such. I am not one who tends to assume that anything .pdf is an academic book either. Thus I describe the r-Techno document as a report.

I did not remove The New Yorker, just remove the description at the lede that says "1976 or 1977". The New Yorker talking about Nathan Gettings' age is still existing in the main text.

I don't think 1982 is impossible against 1995 and 1998, considering Nathan Gettings has been called a genius. It is not a rare thing among people who are supported by Thiel's circles either. Leopold Aschenbrenner graduated as valedictorian of Columbia at the age of 19. And as said in the article Nathan Gettings itself, other sources list his age differently too. If Gettings was in late twenties like Max Chafkin said when Palantir was founded (i.e.2003), he would not have been 32 in 2009 either.

My experience with Gettings is that I have met many standalone things that one source mentions, but are not talked about elsewhere. The website of Concept (a venture fund, which heavily invests in the so-called Thiel ecosystem - see their choice of chosen portfolio companies) talks about Gettings being the founder and CTO of Aeqium. No other source mentions it elsewhere as far as I know but I won't say that it is not definitely untrue. Their statement that "Nathan Gettings and Joe Lonsdale were involved with PayPal and Clarium Capital early on​ before Palantir" is true since Steinberger says "Thiel, Cohen, Lonsdale, and Gettings had started Palantir out of Clarium's office in San Francisco". If he was involved with Clarium by at least 2003 it was not impossible for him to have something to do with the Founders Fund, since the Founders Fund was launched in 2005 by Thiel Capital which is basically a reorganized Clarium. Anyway companies don't have a duty to report the name of their early CTOs in media releases in the US as far as I know. They just have to tell the authorities.

Also even though it is never published in the media anywhere as far as I know, but if what aggregator sites report is true, the Thiel ecosystem/Founders Fund is involved quite a bit in Skydio too.

According to Sacra, the Founders Fund is one of Skydio's key strategic investors. A strategic investor often does not just provide money, but usually gives some organization support too. It might be sensitive (for the tech people involved) since the Founders Fund and Thiel are certainly linked to Skydio's competitors, such as Anduril and Brinc.....

But I will put the Russian source in the main rather than the lede, because it is a standalone source. Deamonpen (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the matters with Damien Félix, Supremacy (book) and Unit X (book) etc. I have mentioned above, that User:Norlk haven't bothered to addrees or try to fix in any way. It does appear that their "no citations whatsoever" problem is habitual.

See this edit on another BLP, Luigi Logrippo. There are not citations for this in the main text either, even now.

At least I give you people citations to discuss. And if there are problems (there are, and I have still been improving the article; but those do not include the Russian source which is not self-published), I did not realize it at the time I wrote the article, and it was not terribly visible to CherryPie94 who reviewed my article either. Also I am not under the impression that I was given a warning - It was a suggestion from Czarking0 to deal with the situation. Deamonpen (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Deamonpen What's your point in analyzing my past edits? Norlk (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Norlk, so what is your point in analyzing my past edits? At least I bothered to look at the whole articles. You focused on one corner and then wasted my energy with useless questions. For example, if you had bothered to look at the early life section of the Peter Thiel article, you would have not made the assumption that he could not have moved to the US at one because he did so at ten. Also at this point I doubt that your intention is to improve Wikipedia articles or help me get rid of my mistakes real or imagined, because you have no intention to even discuss let alone improve your own possible mistakes. As I said to the admins and other users - I don't want you to get banned, I want you to take a realistic view of your own standards and practice. I have taken a look at your profile and I realize, although I don't know how high a percentage that will be, you have spent lot of time to make notices about quality issues in other people's articles. I am lazy to dive deep into those articles, so I won't say whether they or you do a good job, but my suggestion is that even if you have >1k edits, you shoudl probably spend more time buiding articles on visible topics that will attract people who argue with you in the Talk pages, and then it will become easier to decide, which case will deserve making an ANI about it. Deamonpen (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0 and Rsjaffe: Sorry to ping you. A brief summary, on what has happened since. Again the same approach towards editing and admitting mistakes.

Here, the new BLP Nathan Gettings states that a living person co-founded the drone company Skydio. However, he did not. Skydio was founded in 2014 by Adam Bry, Abraham Bachrach and Matt Donahoe. No reliable source connects Gettings to it. The only source is this PDF, written by students of a paid course run by R-Techno, a private Russian intelligence firm, and hosted on that company website. In the Wikipedia article this pdf is cited as a book with five named authors and a page number, and described in the text as "Russian researchers". Above I disregarded this pdf in more details on 8 August. The clam is still in the article. It was moved from the lead to the "Others" section, with the same source attached. WP:BLPREMOVE says material like this must be removed, not relocated. (also, Deamonpen is right that I described the birth-year edit imprecisely. that does not affect anything here.)

Another point. In Deamonpen's own words, the Skydio link is "never published in the media anywhere as far as I know", but "if what aggregator sites report is true" Founders Fund is a Skydio investor, and "a strategic investor ... usually gives some organization support too". On a separate statement they wrote "I won't say that it is not definitely untrue" and "it was not impossible for him to have something to do with the Founders Fund".

Rsjaffe, that is the exact reasoning you shared on 1 August. It is now being used to defend a false statement about a living person after you explained.

Two smaller points. Deamonpen compares this this PDFto "a book/graduation thesis written by Oxford students and published by Oxford". That comparison is not valid. R-Techno is not a university. It sells training courses connected to military topics.

Deamonpen also writes "I am not under the impression that I was given a warning - It was a suggestion from Czarking0". Rsjaffe, at 21:55 on 1 August you wrote: "this synthesis is unacceptable and you must take care when editing, particularly BLPs, and contentious topic." Norlk (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You have no proof that it is a false statement, and I don't even say it as fact. I write that the Russian researchers report it as such. Companies don't have a duty to publish the names of all of their past employees, even executives. And you will find plenty of cases that the list of founders of a company is missing one or some for various reasons. Many lists of Palantir co-founders happen to omit Nathan Gettings. I was the person who added Gettings to the Palatir page, not that long ago.

I compared the situation to Oxford only in the regard that Oxford students # Oxford. Roman Vladimirovich Romachev, CEO of R-Techno, is also a lecturer at Sevastopol State University and Moscow State University. He and his company help train master students there on such topics. The opinions are still the opinions of the latter group and not the company or Romachev. If User:Rsjaffe or User:Czarking0 have opinions about the quality of this source, it is welcome, although I suggest that this is a matter best discussed first on the Talk page of Nathan Gettings. I will not resist a consensus.

I see that Sacra.com is quite a trusted source on this site and appears in pages like Elon Musk too. So in that case, if Trae Stephens represents Founders Fund as a strategic partner for Skydio like they report, then the companies do have a conflict of interest problem because Trae Stephens is the executive chairman of Skydio's rival Anduril, and thus they would have very little incentive to make clear how their early organization was, especially during the time Skydio was in stealth mode. Deamonpen (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Let's say Palantir investing in Shield AI. In early 2025, there were actual widely reported discussions that Palantir was about to invest in Shield AI, but later when the funding round actually happened, Shield AI itself as well as all major outlets in the US did not mention Palantir at all. So did Palantir join or not? The problem is that, even in 2022, Techcrunch made the point that Doug Philippone of Snowpoint Ventures was an "interesting" person to lead the funding for Shield AI, because he happened to also be global defense lead of Palantir at the time. Korean Chosun (which was interviewing Shield AI's co-founder; also let's notice that Korean Hanwha is also a major backer) writes that the Palantir investment in 2025 actually happened, and then I happened to find the second source that is Defense and security monitor from Forecast International, so that counts as two sources and I just wrote that the investment happened in the page of Founders Fund. But the point is that no major outlet reports that at all.

I don't say that the Skydio thing happened or not, or even the Palantir investing in Shield AI happened or not. But as far as I know the sources that report on this are not banned. Deamonpen (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that there is no community consensus that Deamonpen should be warned about BLP editing. However, it is my opinion that continuing to act like they have not been warned is not productive. I also think this is a distinction without a difference as a formal warning is only relevant in the case that future sanctions are imposed. I am not going to and I encourage others not to discuss source quality in this venue. This venue is for conduct. Please focus on conduct violations. Making sourcing-mistakes is not a conduct issue unless there is reason to believe they are bad faith. I see no evidence on Talk:Shield AI Talk:Nathan Gettings nor Talk:Skydio that there has been a consensus for any particular set of facts. Form talk page consensus on these and any other pages before making a community problem. Czarking0 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

~2026-41404-95 and Zirthes

Creating new section title given abundance of subsections. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of Dispute

This is a summary of the below dispute. Involved parties: Zirthes, TA ~2026-41404-95, and EducatedRedneck Partial timeline for brevity:

• After content dispute, TA filed this ANEW report against Zirthes.
• Report was closed with admonishment of Zirthes, which was acknowledged, and page protection
• TA was no satisfied, and complained at ToBeFree’s talk page. TA characterized ToBeFree’s response as “rage baiting”
• Zirthes declines TA edit requests on protected pages, chimes in on related disputes. TA characterizes this as hounding.
• TA files ANI report. Because TA does not agree with Zirthes’ rationale, claims Zirthes is “strawmanning” I comment on report (my first ever interaction with TA).
• TA digs up various innocuous edits as evidence of “hounding”by Zirthes, including claiming Zirthes telling an unrelated editor Please make sure to verify [the edit requests' sources] is somehow an WP:ASPERSION.
• I note here that they don’t seem to have a case. TA goes onto my talk page, says I should beware of boomerang, and commands me to stop posting. (Exchange here) TA becomes increasingly belligerent, I suggest we stop engaging one another and ask them to stop posting on my talk page for a week.
• Zirthes files new report against TA. I consolidate into existing report. TA edits post after it was replied to in order to note this. I ask if TA objects to the move, and receive no response.
• I respond to post in the new ANI thread to acknowledge Zirthes’ timeline was inaccurate.
• When I see more back-and-forth, I advise Zirthes to not respond further. TA replies, suggesting a policy should be made to punish editors who mass-cite violated policies, with clear implication he means me. TA concludes, EducatedRedneck, when are you going to actually stop engaging with me and making unfounded comments about me, like you said you would yesterday? (N.b.: only two responses to them after I suggested disengaging were noted above: asking if they objected to a move, and acknowledging one of their points.)
• When asked what they would have preferred I done, responds, 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. and accuses me of outright lying about everything [they] say.
• TA files new ANEW report, which ToBeFree moves to ANI, and I consolidate below at #User:Zirthes reported by User:~2026-41404-95.

I am requesting a block of the TA for WP:BATTLEGROUND (displayed in this report), WP:FORUMSHOPPING (when they failed to get their desired result at ANEW, filed an ANI and then another ANEW report), WP:HOUNDING of Zirthes (looking through their contribs to try to find something to get them in trouble), and massive WP:IDHT when one admin and three uninvolved editors have told them they have no case and to drop it.

Apologies for the length; I left a lot out, but it's still long. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to try to respond to the summary as concisely as I can.

• After content dispute, TA filed this ANEW report against Zirthes.
• Report was closed with admonishment of Zirthes, which was acknowledged, and page protection

I don't dispute these.

• TA was no satisfied, and complained at ToBeFree’s talk page. TA characterized ToBeFree’s response as “rage baiting”

I did get a little heated when the admin responded with nothing but the word "Okay." They then proceeded to give a second, real response, which I thought was reasonable.

• Zirthes declines TA edit requests on protected pages, chimes in on related disputes. TA characterizes this as hounding.

I dispute "chimes in on" as a description. I would say "followed me to an other user's talk page to tell me to shut up" would be more accurate.

• TA files ANI report. Because TA does not agree with Zirthes’ rationale, claims Zirthes is “strawmanning”

I did not claim Zirthes was strawmanning because I disagreed with them on policy. I claimed Zirthes was strawmanning because they repeatedly claimed, across multiple pages, that I was violating WP:USERGENERATED by saying Wikipedia should be used as a source on Wikipedia; on each page, I explained that I was saying the exact opposite, which they never acknowledged.

• TA digs up various innocuous edits as evidence of “hounding”by Zirthes, including claiming Zirthes telling an unrelated editor Please make sure to verify [the edit requests' sources] is somehow an WP:ASPERSION.

The editor, who is experienced on this site, had accepted one of my edit requests. I did not use the word "aspersion" or cite WP:ASPERSIONS when highlighting this.

• I note here that they don’t seem to have a case. TA goes onto my talk page, says I should beware of boomerang, and commands me to stop posting. (Exchange here) TA becomes increasingly belligerent, I suggest we stop engaging one another and ask them to stop posting on my talk page for a week.

I did not "command you to stop posting". I did tell you that you had given your two cents and were now responding to multiple comments by me on the thread with repetitive claims that I was "casting aspersions". I also highlighted that WP:ASPERSIONS is about when you accuse someone of serious misbehaviour (examples on the page are "this user seems to be paid to disrupt Wikipedia" or "this user seems to have a criminal record") without evidence, and that the page specifically states not to claim someone is casting aspersions just because they have a different opinion, have exaggerated a situation, or have overreacted to an everyday event (e.g., if they call your edit "vandalism").

• Zirthes files new report against TA. I consolidate into existing report. TA edits post after it was replied to in order to note this. I ask if TA objects to the move, and receive no response.

Because I was already typing up my own comment, which I posted shortly after, in which I state 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,

• When I see more back-and-forth, I advise Zirthes to not respond further. TA replies, suggesting a policy should be made to punish editors who mass-cite violated policies, with clear implication he means me.

While you do seem to have a bit of a habit of citing policies (e.g. WP:ASPERSIONS) that don't apply, Zirthes does this way more, and who I was mainly thinking of, although I've observed this to be a serious problem across Wikipedia in my entire time of editing Wikipedia regularly. Yes, I do think that there should be some kind of punishment against experienced editors who report other users and fill those reports with countless WP:SHORTCUTs that seem relevant based on the name but actually aren't when you click on them and read them. I believe it's an unethical and bullying way to make bystanders say "wow, look at all these policies that are being broken!" and side against someone.

• When asked what they would have preferred I done, responds, 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. and accuses me of outright lying about everything [they] say.

While obviously hyperbole, even this very summary has had numerous outright falsehoods (e.g. claiming that I cited WP:ASPERSIONS against Zirthes).

• TA files new ANEW report, which ToBeFree moves to ANI, and I consolidate below at #User:Zirthes reported by User:~2026-41404-95.

I don't dispute this.

• I am requesting a block of the TA for WP:BATTLEGROUND (displayed in this report), WP:FORUMSHOPPING (when they failed to get their desired result at ANEW, filed an ANI and then another ANEW report), WP:HOUNDING of Zirthes (looking through their contribs to try to find something to get them in trouble), and massive WP:IDHT when one admin and three uninvolved editors have told them they have no case and to drop it.

I just want to be very clear on this. Going through someone's contributions to find something to get them in trouble is hounding? Is that what you're stating? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If any other editors have any questions, including whether they would like me to respond to any of TA's statements, I am available to answer. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Additionally, The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Summary of hounding

On 30 July, the day after I filed the edit war report, Zirthes:

• [17:56 UTC] Joined a talk page discussion I was a part of, starting with If I'm correct this is to do with using the ADM template instead of adding the aggregate score manually, which was not really an accurate description of the discussion.
• [18:32 UTC] Asked why the discussion was not on the other user's talk page, which I had explained at the very top of the thread.

On 1 August, the day after my initial edit warring report was marked as answered:

• [16:55 UTC] Functionally denied an edit request of mine on the article the edit war occurred, with flimsy reasoning.
• [17:08 UTC] Appeared on another user's talk page, where they weren't mentioned, to tell me You've already been told about this, just stop please. When I pointed out that the thing they were arguing against (sourcing the way in which Metacritic weights its averages) and what I'm actually advocating for (sourcing that Metacritic averages are weighted at all) are different, they responded with [17:50 UTC] I wasn't actually asking you if you've been told, I'm telling you that you have been, and not just by me. The more prevailing thing here is that you seem to think you can take it upon yourself to do things however you please, which is not how Wikipedia works. You have been told multiple times by different editors why we do not include the aforementioned reference for the weighted scores, yet you are continuing to push for it to be included.
• [22:12 UTC] Added the exact type of edit I requested, but to a different article I had also been working on.

On 3 August:

• [15:41 UTC] Overhauled an request edit of mine that had been accepted, criticising it with a misleading edit summary.
• [15:53 UTC] Admonished the editor who accepted said request.
• [23:14 UTC] Created a retaliatory AN/I thread about me consisting of eleven paragraphs and 12,759 bytes, where essentially every point is misleading in some way; one of the most egregious examples, about a situation in which Zirthes was not involved at all (meaning they had a dig through my edit history), being In regards to Album of the Year, the user has attempted to argue that it should be considered a reliable source at [link], 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. The timestamps on their own proof show that I was adding the source to articles before my thread discussing its reliability, and before I had ever been made aware the source's reliability was in question.

On 4 August:

• [10:03 UTC] Wrote here on AN/I that 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. This means that, were I try to start talk page discussions with them about edits of mine that they've reverted, it could be considered harassment.

On 5 August, after I am now no longer "allowed" to interact with their edits, they edited these articles and only these articles (except for an edit at 00:00 UTC):

• [12:36 UTC] Deleted most of a section that was mostly written by me, justifying the deletion in the edit summary with a questionable interpretation of a WikiProject guideline
• [15:35 UTC] Marked an edit request of mine as answered after implementing it.
• [16:33 UTC] Deleted a lot of a section that was mostly written by me on a previous TA on article "Daughter from Hell", justifying the deletion in the edit summary with a barrage of WP:SHORTCUTs
• [17:07 UTC] Deleted a citation of mine with a correct interpretation of a guideline but no consideration as to why I included the citation; they had never edited this article before and made an unprompted reference in the edit summary to their reversion at "Daughter from Hell"

On 7 August, on the last article they edited on 5 August:

• [20:07 UTC] Added (and misused) the template Excessive citations inline to some of my individual citations because they felt they were unnecessary; the template is supposed to be when the number of inline citations next to each other is too many
• [20:22 UTC] Added the template Overly detailed to the personnel section, written entirely by me, because it has the credits to the only single from the album

~2026-41404-95 (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Response by Zirthes

I think the point of the initial summary by EducatedRedneck was to provide an overview of the dispute without actually continuing the dispute, which you seem to have failed to realise.

Since you don't like people referencing shortcuts (despite that being normal protocol), and you seem to go about editing completely ignoring those pages anyway, I'll clarify all of this without doing so.

• 30 July:

Before I even commented on that talk page discussion, you had already attempted to report me and caused many issues with various articles. Naturally I was going to be more aware of further issues stemming from this, especially considering we had been editing similar articles. I also had an ongoing discussion there already regarding the positioning of an image from 27 July.

• 1 August:

Like I explained to you (twice), the sales figure from Billboard/Luminate for Music, Fashion, Film would be out in a few days, so there was no need to include the HDD sales figure. And I was right. There is literally no reason to include two different figures for album sales other than to confuse the reader, it's just common sense.

Music, Fashion, Film sales were reported by Billboard/Luminate because it was a top 3 album, where as A*Pop's were not because it only charted at 43 on the Billboard 200. In this instance, it makes sense to include the HDD number as this is the only source available for sales. I also started a discussion on the talk page when I added this incase any other editors objected, which none did.

Regarding talk page discussions about Petal, this is an article that I had already been editing and it was evident you were both involved in a dispute by the edit summaries.

• 3 August:

Nowhere in the Deadline article did it say Grande was confirmed to appear in the musical in December 2025. They reported in December that her and Jonathan Bailey were "thinking of re-teaming", after which the following month it was confirmed Grande would star in it after an announcement on the Barbican website (reported by ABC News and others). Just because it was accepted that doesn't mean it was correct and I politely reminded the person who accepted it to check the sources first, which they later thanked me for.

My report against you was that long because of the vast amount of things you have done which violate Wikipedia policies. And yet you continue to make the same kind of disruptive edits that led us to this point.

• 4 August:

I am allowed to establish boundaries especially considering your apparent ignorance. This did not stop you from participating and creating various reports and constantly accusing me of things I haven't done while making judgements on my editing style and bordering on judgements on my character in the process.

• 5 August:

I already stated before that I would continue to edit articles I have a particular interest in. If I want to edit an article about a Phoebe Bridgers' album, then I can, and if there is something that is wrong or needs to be fixed, I will treat this as I would with any other editor or article.

Regarding accepting your edit request on Sugababes article, I'm sorry to tell you this but you are not so important to where I'm checking every edit you make. If you actually check the authorship of the article, I have contributed extensively to it over time. To be honest, I didn't even realise you were the one who submitted the edit request. I have also contributed to numerous other Sugababes-related articles.

The stuff you did on Daughter from Hell was largely unsourced, especially the intricate detail about who reported sales. It also contained a lot of incorrect wikilinks, and trivial information that isn't crucial for the reader to understand what is being said. All you needed to do was say "... debuted at number one on the UK Albums Chart with ..sales number.. earned in its first week ..." or something to that effect. This is standard protocol on the majority of album articles by high-profile artists.

• 7 August:

Template:Excessive citations states to use the inline template if the problem is inline. Regardless of whether the citations you put could be justified, you did not bundle the citations when there were only two per sentence and this disrupts flow.

In the personnel section for an album you should not be putting the credits for one song, especially when that song has its own Wikipedia page which currently does not list the personnel, where it would be better suited. You also shouldn't be putting trivial information as you did with the initial paragraph in that section.

None of these things are hounding, the only reason you think they are hounding is because you think that everything I do following on from this dispute revolves around you when it does not. I have contributed to many other pages during this process which you have never touched (thankfully). There is really nothing else that needs to be said. Zirthes (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This one's a doozy. It contains more falsehoods (e.g. referring to sourced content of mine as unsourced, defending their use of a template by pointing to the page of a different template). It contains more of the rude comments that Zirthes has been allowed to fling my way from the very beginning without anyone complaining about their conduct (e.g. I am allowed to establish boundaries especially considering your apparent ignorance. and the only reason you think they are hounding is because you think that everything I do following on from this dispute revolves around you when it does not.) It contains more WP:GASLIGHTING (This did not stop you from participating and creating various reports and constantly accusing me of things I haven't done — please note that it's been five days and they still haven't explained how they ended up accusing me of "adding the source to articles anyway" and then pointing to diffs that came before the discussion of its reliability, nor have they acknowledged it).

I'm not going to respond to this thing line-by-line, because I really think Zirthes is doing a good job of proving me right. I just wanted to highlight these first two paragraphs.

I think the point of the initial summary by EducatedRedneck was to provide an overview of the dispute without actually continuing the dispute, which you seem to have failed to realise.

"Silence, TA. Know your place. Let us say false things about you, and don't question us." This has been the attitude since the beginning, not just of this AN/I thread, but since the incident with Zirthes which led me to filing the edit war report in the first place.

Since you don't like people referencing shortcuts (despite that being normal protocol), and you seem to go about editing completely ignoring those pages anyway, I'll clarify all of this without doing so.

When, in this thread or elsewhere on Wikipedia, have I said that I inherently dislike the shortcuts? In fact, I've just cited one in this very comment that I think is quite relevant. Unfortunately, there's a very big problem on this website where people cite shortcuts, sometimes not even to guidelines but to unreviewed personal user essays as if they were policy, as a thought terminating-cliche. There's an even bigger problem on here of people citing shortcuts that aren't even relevant just because the name looks kinda like it could be. And finally, there's a problem on here of people trying to get others in trouble not with rational discussion of if they're harmful to the project, but by cramming a talk page comment with as many shortcuts as possible (even if they're not relevant when you click on them and read them) so others will say "Damn, they sure are breaking a lot of policies!" ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Whatever other editors do with shortcuts has nothing to do with this dispute, just as me getting warned for edit warring in June or including a source in another article that I previously disagreed with you using, doesn't. Have you noticed that no one else in any of these reports has actually agreed with anything you said apart from a minor discrepancy about the timeline of one event. Your whole purpose of editing seems to be to just go against what everyone else is doing with what you feel is right like you are above everyone else and all the established policies, all while you aren't even a registered user. And then you accuse other people of bullying you and "dog-piling" on you when they try to make you realise that it doesn't work that way, like you are the victim. Not to mention that you keep twisting my words like you are trying to create some kind of delusion that justifies your point of view. It's absolutely ridiculous. Zirthes (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Whatever other editors do with shortcuts has nothing to do with this dispute

Actually, the way in which you and EducatedRedneck are citing shortcuts with the goal to get me blocked is relevant to this dispute.

Have you noticed that no one else in any of these reports has actually agreed with anything you said apart from a minor discrepancy about the timeline of one event.

Tell that to the admin who told you that you were edit warring after my initial report. Also, I see you've finally acknowledged the existence of that part of your retaliatory AN/I report. Do you want to explain how it happened?

Your whole purpose of editing seems to be to just go against what everyone else is doing with what you feel is right like you are above everyone else and all the established policies

Wow. My entire time of editing Wikipedia regularly since mid-2025 has been just to be a nuisance. Never mind all the "thanks" notifications I've received. Never mind the paragraphs upon paragraphs of well-sourced encyclopedic content I've added to this site. Never mind the fact that I started the articles for the most recent Sabrina Carpenter and Clipse albums. Never mind all the tedious little edits I do to the number of reviews for albums and films on Metacritic, Any Decent Music, and Rotten Tomatoes because a lot of other editors won't and I want the information to be as up-to-date as possible. Never mind that I've reported numerous vandals and helped them get blocked. Never mind that I've helped to untangle mysteries via talk page discussions when sources have provided conflicting information. Everything I've done is to be a troll. I had no idea! How dare you?

all while you aren't even a registered user.

And there it is! That's what this is alllllll about. On the Music Fashion Film article, you edit warred with me - you refused to properly clarify your removal of my content - you failed to appreciate that I removed some of my own content that you failed to properly remove and I wanted in the article - you kept adding a typo back because you didn't even check what I was correcting - because I don't have an account. How dare a lowly TA dispute the mighty Zirthes? I haven't even brought up that when you requested the page be protected, you made a boastful comment about TAs getting in the way of "skilled editors" like yourself.

This is Wikipedia. It's called that because it's a wiki encyclopedia. This site did not invent the term "wiki" - I advise you to look up the origin. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I said whatever other editors do is not relevant, meaning outside of this dispute.. You can leave EducatedRedneck out of it, you reported me in this dispute so my actions are the ones that are relevant. I broke the three revert rule which is a policy relating to edit warring, which I took accountability for. You are once again taking things out of context to support your argument. The outcome of the report was that the article was protected because of disruptive edits and you know that to be true, you just can't handle that no action against me was taken. In regards to your editing, no one forced you to start editing on Wikipedia. You chose to start editing and in doing so you also chose to abide by the Wikipedia editing policies. If you can't handle that, maybe this isn't for you. To be completely honest with you, no one cares about who created articles. I created the article for Stateside (song) which is a huge global smash hit, does that give me some kind of importance? No, and I'm fine with that, because I'm not editing to satisfy myself or give myself some kind of importance. I'm doing it because I have an interest in certain topics and I would like them to be documented on this website where they might not have been otherwise. I'm not particularly interested in your victim mentality here, if you want to respond to this defending yourself once again then go ahead. However, I would suggest you go and touch grass afterwards. Zirthes (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

you just can't handle that no action against me was taken.

I just want to be left alone.

I created the article for Stateside (song) which is a huge global smash hit, does that give me some kind of importance?

No, but it does mean that your "entire purpose of editing" isn't to be a nuisance - something I haven't claimed about you.

However, I would suggest you go and touch grass afterwards.

Just quoting this in case it gets deleted. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm once again backing out of this. I've provided all the evidence I can about what you have done that is wrong, of which there are many, many things. It's blindingly obvious that you are the one in the wrong, and its only a matter of time until an administrator steps in and gives their verdict. After that, I hope you reflect on your behaviour and realise that you can't go on editing with this kind of attitude. Have I said a few questionable things too? Yes, but it pales in comparison to what you have done. If you have anything else to say, you can hash it out with the other people involved in this discussion if they will even give you the time of day anymore. At this point I'm just being gas-lit and I'm not going to get myself punished for something you have initiated. On the topic of leaving people alone, how about practicing what you preach and leave me alone. Zirthes (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Zirthes, please. Do not engage with the TA. I tried to make a short summary so someone would look at this and take appropraite action. The back-and-forth makes even the summary too long. Just post to say you're free to answer uninvolved question, including if they think any of the TA's points need to be addressed. The more you post, the less likely action will be taken here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies. Zirthes (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Having encountered similar behavior at Talk:Age of the Exhibitionist and the message the TA left on Horsers' talk page in reference to that discussion (diff), I concur with the assessment of battleground-y behavior. Being difficult and shady like that towards other contributors is against the collaborative environment Wikipedia strives for, no matter how right we think we are. However, this thread's gone on for way too long and there's nothing outright disruptive happening at present, so I believe the most we can do at the moment is a trout and strong admonishment. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. As long as the TA promises to stop and stops being incendiary, I see no other way to end this hilariously long back-and-forth. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 08:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I pondered for a few minutes whether I should even bother responding to this comment.

When Petal talks about me displaying "battleground-y" behaviour at Talk:Age of the Exhibitionist, they are talking about this exchange:

It being available on all three platforms separate from the album alone disqualifies it as a single.

I'm not following the reasoning here.

Per the fifth point of the second section: "[t]he song has 'single' next to its title on digital services (e.g., iTunes, Spotify or Tidal), as 'single' is present next to all independent releases, official or not." and it has been via Apple Music.

I already addressed that in the OP, but I'm asking for you to clarify It being available on all three platforms separate from the album alone disqualifies it as a single. Why does that disqualify it?

I did. Per the points I made above (i.e., here and here). It is available independently from the album on digital services, which is "one or two formats".

You said that "Michael." was released to streaming services separately from the album, and that that alone makes it not a single.

Because, again, per the points I pointed out, it disqualifies it. I am not sure how much else I can explain it. It is available, independently, from the album, which per WP:SINGLE? deems it not a single (as it is listed as a factor that does not suggest a song is a single). Especially since there is a lack of proof from third-party media at the present moment to suggest and prove otherwise, or even a radio impact date. Even Official Charts to not list it in its current "new releases" posting.

"X does not suggest Y" and "X suggests not Y" are not the same thing. I feel like I'm losing my mind.

It is available, independently, from the album, which per WP:SINGLE? deems it not a single

This can't be a real conversation. You were arguing before that a song being released separately from an album doesn't necessarily make it a single, but now you've switched to saying that a song being released separately from an album makes it not a single. Like, you're saying that "single" means "song only available on an album". That's literally what you're typing right now.

I think you are confusing what I have been stating or misinterpreting it. Never have I maintained or suggested that it receiving a standalone release digital digital platforms to equate it being a single. Never did I say the word "necessarily" within this conversation, either. Since the start of this, I have maintained that it being released to a streaming/digital platform does not equate to it being a single, per WP:SINGLE? — my stance on that has not changed throughout any of this conversation. Even per my initial response to this topic, I wrote: "[t]he issue is being sent to streaming platforms does not mean it is a single", and that stance has never wavered.

Since the start of this, I have maintained that it being released to a streaming/digital platform does not equate to it being a single

That's what you started with, yes. But then you started claiming that not only does it not make it a single, it makes it not a single. I don't wanna have to ask this, but you're a native speaker, right? I think I recall you saying something about being from the US once. Something being disqualified doesn't just mean that it doesn't quality. It means it can't qualify.

Livelikemusic then said I was being bigoted towards them and Petal jumped in to tell me to "chill with [my] behaviour". I think this exchange speaks for itself, really.

As long as the TA promises to stop and stops being incendiary, I see no other way to end this hilariously long back-and-forth.

I see another way it could end: someone acknowledging what's obviously been happening this entire thread. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't plan on retracting on any of the stuff I've said. And no, you should not have opted to reply. People can check the diffs on their own, and if you believe youre right, let the diffs speak for themselves. The last thing this thread needs is even more walls of text. This is the last time I will be replying to this thread—I ask that anybody involved or chooses to be involved refrain from pinging me or asking me for further responses. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 10:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't plan on retracting on any of the stuff I've said.

I didn't ask you to.

I ask that anybody involved or chooses to be involved refrain from pinging me or asking me for further responses.

You're not the only person in this thread to drop in, get mild pushback, and quickly declare that you are done and want no more part in this!

You probably shouldn't try to join in on discussions like this if you don't want to be challenged. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 10:12, 9 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:Zirthes reported by User:~2026-41404-95

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

 – ToBeFree (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Page: Daughter from Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Petal (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zirthes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Zirthes's reversions: Daughter from Hell / Petal

This report is formatted unusually because the user's behaviour on these two articles is only problematic due to additional context.

I reported Zirthes for edit-warring on 29 July over continuously reverting me and refusing to compromise. Their responses to the report were very long, contained several misrepresentations of me, and seemed designed to be overwhelming to respond to. The responding admin (who had, in June, blocked Zirthes from a specific article for two weeks over edit-warring) determined Zirthes had edit-warred, told them not to do it again, didn't tell me to behave differently, and granted a page protection request Zirthes had filed; the request mostly pointed to edits unrelated to the edit war.

I told the admin on their talk page that I was worried their decision being so lenient would motivate Zirthes to continue. Despite me getting slightly heated over what I considered a dismissive initial response, they ended up telling me that they gave it another look over and decided to stick with their decision, which I thought was fair enough.

Within a day, Zirthes had denied an edit request I made on the newly-protected page and followed me onto another user's talk page to tell me to shut up and not discuss an unrelated topic. I went to AN/I and reported them for hounding. Two days into the thread, they made their own AN/I thread about me in which they painted me as a villain and quoted every single WP:SHORTCUT they could think of, which another user merged into my thread as a subsection. The 12000-byte post contained several misrepresentations. Just one example: they claimed that I continued to add a source to articles after its reliability had been challenged on a talk page I was involved in; the timestamps showed that it was the other way around.

Zirthes's most recent comment on the thread (4 August) is to ask me that I never directly interact with them again. Since then, they have continued to interact with my edits; on 5 August, they reverted thousands of bytes of sections mostly created by me across three different articles, including Daughter from Hell and Petal. These reversions came with aggressive edit summaries (e.g. "lazy editing") with questionable interpretations of several policies. Remember, I can't discuss these reversions with them because they don't want me to interact with them any more, so I can't defend the thousands of bytes of work they're getting rid of.

They seemed to move on, so I tried to add some stuff back this evening, which they re-reverted very quickly. (Notice in the second one that they quote a policy while claiming it says something ["needs fully new songs"] it doesn't - Zirthes does that a lot.) I know that you usually shouldn't be reporting the same user on two different boards at once, and my AN/I thread is technically still "active", but it's a slow-moving 44-comment behemoth mostly consisting of me being dog-piled and responding to as many misrepresentations as I possibly can, which hasn't inspired many editors to wanna jump in and give their thoughts. Meanwhile, I'm not able to defend my edits on several articles.

I just wanna be left alone, man.

~2026-41404-95 (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to be left alone, just follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that have been explained to you countless times (

). It's really not difficult. Zirthes (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the reversions you made on Daughter from Hell and Petal because the only reason you gave is that the previous version was the "last good version" when it has already been explained to you by myself and another editor who are both highly experienced in editing album articles why that is not the case.

Because most of you report has nothing to do with edit warring and I know for a fact I did not edit war, I will clarify what actually happened regarding these two articles.

• I made changes to Petal (album) on 5 August at 12:36 UTC where I removed the redundant album versions from the "Release history" table, clearly explaining my reason for doing so in the edit summary.. You added these back on 6 August at 23:54 UTC for no apparent reason. I reverted this edit on 7 August at 00:04 UTC which is my first edit on that article since 5 August at 12:36 UTC. After this, you restored the previous version, after which the user Camilasdandelions reverted back to my edit again.
• I made changes to Daughter from Hell on 5 August at 16:33 UTC where I fixed multiple issues that I clearly explained in the edit summary.. On 6 August at 23:15 UTC you reverted my edit. I reverted this back to my edit on 7 August at 0:02 UTC which is my first edit on that article since 16:49 UTC on 5 August.

In total I reverted two of your edits on the two separate articles with a 24 hour period (clearly explaining why both times), while you reverted at least four edits on the two separate articles within the same period, which is what you need to be worrying about.

Zirthes (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm reiterating my request for a block of the TA.

We now have WP:FORUMSHOPPING, possible WP:Edit Warring, clear WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT, and a healthy dose of WP:HOUNDING by the TA against Zirthes. I also feel, per the above, that they're baiting me, first demanding I stop posting to this thread because I disagreed with them, then repeatedly using my lack of response as some sort of mark against me, while ALSO criticizing me for responding thrice (once to ask if they objected to a housekeeping item, once to agree with one of their points, and once to respond to a direct question). If desired, I can make a much shortened summary of the evidence already presented in the above threads. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is but I noticed that the TA left this message on Horsers' talk page, which referenced in a very shady way a content dispute that not only was Horsers not a part of but also initiated after much of the walls of text here had already been posted. This to me seems like the most recent entry in a long list of instances where the TA has shown how incapable they are in engaging in consensus discussions without antagonizing at least one person. "See if you can read it without your brain melting and leaking out your ears" really? Btw, in that content dispute I mentioned the TA made an unnecessary, pointed remark at a participant's English proficiency, which appears to be another habit of theirs.

And yes @EducatedRedneck, a way, way more abridged summary of everything in this thread would be necessary. The main reason why this discussion has practically stalled is because of this thread's unusual length. Petal ꕤ (bunny hop) 14:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Roger that. I'll start working on one for the parent heading. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Mohammedraashid123 altering quotations

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

---

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)

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

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)

Okay, I just unarchived this thread (it was archived automatically). I wanted to give Stormm001 time to indicate that they actually understood the issue, but since they haven't by the time the thread was archived, I think it fair to ask if a topic ban discussion is warranted. After about a two day hiatus, Stormm001 began editing again, but as far as I can tell none of their edits were in violation of what was discussed here.

The issue still being to me that Stormm001's responses have not elicited confidence in me that they truly understand the issue and that they will continue to edit appropriately. I don't particularly want to monitor another user's edits just to see if the point was understood. Raskuly 🐰 21:16, 9 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)

Accusations of neo-Nazism

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

---

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.

[edited BreadAndHumus (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC) ] 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)

  Anyone reading the conversation and ToBeFree's comment would infer that TBF responded to BreadAndHummus, since it was BHA's question about which rule prevents "their" behavior. When he said "To answer BreadAndHumus's question[...]" he referred to BreadAndHummus in the third person, and then said "their," obviously still referring to Bread, in neutral pronouns.

  Perhaps BreadAndHummus believed it was the plural "their"? Either way, though I don't think it's necessary, but ToBeFree could clarify it so theres no doubt about this point.

  Or not. There's enough WP:Battleground behavior to go around from this user anyways. BrandNewSaint (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  BreadAndHumus, that was a singular they directed at you, explaining why your behavior was disruptive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 6 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Cython (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

"BreadAndHumus has caused too much distress to me and to other editors such as Piccco, Biz, Aetolorhode, Demetrios1993 and Khirurg." Is this some kind of admission? How do you know that they are in distress? BreadAndHumus (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

We all have egos and we frequently disagree on how to improve an article which we care about. This is difficult enough when everything under WP:CIVIL environment. If you add threats and a polemic behavior with conspiratorial accusations, well this is the definition of WP:NOTHERE, i.e., none of us wants it and it has no place in WP. So please comply with WP:PAG as many other editors in this thread and elsewhere already told you. A.Cython(talk) 22:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython My advice would be to not even reply to silly questions like this. Making baseless WP:PERSONALATTACKS on editors, like all the above, is a violation by itself. They are well-informed about anything they need to be at this point. Piccco (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not personal attack. You've admitted that you, Piccco, Biz, Aetolorhode, Demetrios1993 and Khirurg are in distress. The question is how do you know this? Things have become very hot... Very hot indeed... BreadAndHumus (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

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)

It is closely related to the report. It unequivocally shows that there is some form of coordination between editors. Something is happening behind the scenes. The discussion on the talk page of Greece should be viewed in light of this revelation. I have informed Nishjan on his talk page and asked him to provide explanations. What is even more striking is that the editors who otherwise so vigorously defend these pages are not reverting the deletion. Editors like you… BreadAndHumus (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This "conspiracy" you allude to is an excuse you seemed to imply on the Byzantine Empire talk page as well. I find it hard to follow: you are making fast and bold edits to a number of pages, many changes of which alter long-held WP:STATUSQUOs—this kind of editing is almost destined to find substantial opposition. But this only really becomes a real issue from your reaction to it: you are unable to find consensus, or seemingly take feedback without an aggressive response and/or revert. Your account has only existed for two months, yet nearly a hundred of your edits have been reverted by dozens of completely different and unrelated editors. You do realize we're trying to build an encyclopedia, right? Rather than perhaps arguing your position with a cool head (a much more effective way to convince others), you are starting things like this ridicoulous Byzantine Empire RFC on a single line, which has now involved a dozen editors all against your position, and essentially wasted their time and the encylopedia's time. Is this really the kind of editing you want to do here? – Aza24 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no "conspiracy." How do you explain that an editor who never before edited any of the articles I mentioned above went and removed a similar map with an irredentist hint from all of them? How did he know that, and is the timing just a coincidence? Also, give this list of dozens of completely different and unrelated editors with diffs, please; otherwise your reliability and good faith will be questioned. BreadAndHumus (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

A.Cython admition

A.Cython has stated "BreadAndHumus has caused too much distress to me and to other editors such as Piccco, Biz, Aetolorhode, Demetrios1993 and Khirurg." How exactly does he know that they are in distress? The only reasonable explanation is that they have some sort of out of Wikipedia contact, which implies coordination. This would explain a lot of things.

Summery about the map in article about Greece

Khirurg comes and puts the fake irrendentist map in the super-prime advertisement (I don’t mean paid) article [Greece] in a prominent top position (2nd picture from the top). None of the usual editors has any objections, regardless of the fact that it is a fakery. Later I come and remove the map, and the same editors who initially accepted the fake map now object. No one agrees to its removal on the talk page. Later I even replace the fake map with a map that accurately renders the source, but now the same editors who accepted the fake map and refused its removal are refusing even the replacement. This is a little strange, isn’t it? It again points to coordination for an underlying objective. How else can you explain this surreal situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BreadAndHumus (talk • contribs) 12:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Later I even replace the fake map with a map that accurately renders the source, but now the same editors who accepted the fake map and refused its removal are refusing even the replacement.

From reading the discussion there without deep knowledge on a subject it doesn't looks like correct description. There is a much talk about "source (map)", but it's unclear if all the people who use those words refer to the same thing. As I understand you're trying to redraw this into something that actually could be seen, and some part of talk is about correcting you in process, contradicting a statement about "accurately renders the source". Is there something excessively special about that map proposed for redraw (it is from somebody important)? Now about the other map is said that it claims to be based on the source but does not accurately follow it., but it would be some other source then. It reads more as "both maps are faulty" there. While your map, obviously, better at rendering your source, as other map is not trying to render it, statement about a map that accurately renders the source looks both right and irrelevant the same time, untill it at least would be provided why that source should be rendered instead of another. ~2026-43504-59 (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I will assume that your participation is in good faith and not merely to create doubts. My first version of the map is this: . If two misspellings (“Cilicia” misspelled as “Cylicia” and “Colony” misspelled as “Collony”), plus a small strip of land on the coastline of Apulia, do not qualify my statement “accurately renders the source” as true in the context of replacing this grossly exaggerated map , then I am guilty. The map was corrected, and the second version is this: , which “accurately renders the source.” I hope you will not start casting doubts on the statement “accurately renders the source” merely because the words “PERSIAN EMPIRE” use a different font and are positioned a little to the right. BreadAndHumus (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I see there "it is in fact already better, but it could benefit from additional modifications per the source", "I already mentioned that in the main source there are half a dozen cities in south of Turkey that are removed.", and "The source should be respected; therefore, those cities should indeed be included." right after the new version of map is provided. True it or not I don't know, but it clearly shows that map is not seen there as the one accurately rendering the source still (the claim I'm about here). Personally I have no opinion if those renderings actually “accurately renders the source” or not, because source provided is of, well, not very accessible quality, so, in advance it's needed to address first why it have to be rendered instead of other sources. I'm not doubting that your rendering is not (err) matching original, I'm only mention that other people on that Talk page are doubting it, and it contradict original statement about "a map that accurately renders the source", with it being merely your own words about it yet. ~2026-43504-59 (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you BreadAndHumus (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Move to close, need an Admin

I'm uninvolved. @BreadAndHumus: you may well or may well not be right or wrong on the specific article details. But you need to do things the 'right' way. Sweeping wide swathes of articles for changes that are obviously contentious based on the responses to them - you tried. They didn't stick.

The right way is to then talk your way into the outcome you want on each unique article talk page with the involved parties. Policy, common sense, politeness, evidence. That's how you do it. Honestly, I know nothing about what you all are beefing over as a topic. There were good guys and bad guys in whatever context you all are trying to edit into whatever pages. That's fine. None of that will be adjudicated on WP:ANI. It never is.

Bring receipts to Article and Talk pages and evidence, and if your evidence and article improvements are insurmountable and non-contestable under WP:PAG - which do handcuff 100% of editors here no matter how many folks chirp otherwise - they will stick, and you won't even have to explain a damn thing to anyone. If your change to a sentence is so rock solid that any edit objectively makes it worse under WP:PAG - huzzah. You've de facto "locked" in a maybe permanent stable version of your design.

Until someone makes it better under WP:PAG. But that's what you need to do. Focus on one change and buff it to non-contestable perfection. Move to the next. Even if you do have supposed "foes", that's how you do things. Be a glacier, not a box of matches.

• Move to close and such: Suggest an Admin toss B&H a warning to knock it down a notch or next trip to WP:ANI goes to a topic ban for a few months. And whoever wants to launch sock accusations: not here, not in subthreads. Go compile your evidence and do whatever WP:SPI tells you to do. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• No reason for closure Why would anyone want to close this case? There are still some editors who need to clarify a few things. BreadAndHumus (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Another notification/warning after this (20/7), this (22/7), this (22/7), this (22/7), this (26/7), this (1/8), or this (4/8)? to name some. At which point does a pattern become obvious? Piccco (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Support close with action against reported user: This sealioning, wikilawyering, grasping at straws, throwing squid ink on everyone and wall of text has gone on for too long. This subtle jab on another editor who tried to mediate is the final straw. Borgenland (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, can somebody put this thread out of its misery please? What happened here is that B&H started out his editing career with some edits that were widely perceived as tendentious and got reverted by a number of other editors; A.Cython probably overreacted to some of these and has been adding a bit more heat than light to discussions, and ever since then B&H has been going around doing mostly what may be perceived as picking fights. And now, the longer this lasts, the deeper he's getting entangled in this bizarre web of assumptions of bad faith, which has really gone out of all proportions. Please put some stop to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Please do not close this ANI I am collecting information about which areas the irredentist claims are targeting. Khirurg and Nishjan must also have the opportunity to have their say. I have accused them of something, and they should have the chance to defend themselves. BreadAndHumus (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Good grief. Given they have accused literally everyone who doesn't agree with them of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, off-wiki coordination, and probably pouring coffee grounds into the sink, and they have responded to being questioned about that by doubling, tripling, quadrupling, and quintupling down, enough is enough as enough WP:ROPE has been expended here to keep a small army of cordiers in business. BreadAndHumus is blatantly not compatible with a collaborative project and I have blocked them indef (note, as a normal admin action, not an AE block). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

Yep, something told me it'd be on the more challenging side to deal with this particular issue. I suppose I should apply for that TAIV permission at some point in order to better describe things for others.

In any case, thanks for helping to make some sense of things! I was looking through page histories, saw all the TAs and thought, "This seems fairly beyond my pay grade to address." Sigma440 (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that they're back making the same unsourced and disruptive edits on multiple articles as ~2026-43470-91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ~2026-43590-66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sigma440 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Commander Keane - personal attacks, hounding and WP:AGF failure

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

---

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)

I agree. I think their admin privileges should be revoked. Jako96 (talk) 13:26, 9 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)

Yeah... to be honest, "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)" and calling Danners430's reverts "messes" are not great comments. Especially if the warnings were for removing sources without an edit summary or changing figures without a source. So it may be a good idea to remind Commander Keane about civility expectations.

At the same time, WP:HA#NOT also may apply. If CK is merely adding sources to info Danners removed as unsourced, I don't see the issue in fixing the issues that were flagged. WP:HOUND says, Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. Arguably, adding sources to unreferenced content can be seen as an example of "correcting related problems". I'm not excusing CK's behavior here, just providing some context. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Aye I absolutely agree the edits are absolutely constructive - I’d never claim otherwise here. The seeming hounding was just the final straw after the multiple rude messages, prompting me to post here instead of continuing the discussion on their talk page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

My (poor) behaviour stems from my stance of WP:PRESERVE-ing while Danners430 sits in the WP:BURDEN camp, and my complete lack of understanding why BURDEN is getting applied to vulnerable users. If the prevailing community opinion is that an editor can wake up one morning and apply BURDEN to their heart's content, then I really have no leg to stand on and I accept that. I apologise for my incivility (both directly to Danners430 and on the talk pages of those reverted users where I was nose rubbing) - it was borne out of frustration.

In all of these cases, editor's "removals" were positive - updating and correcting information. Personally, my preference when I see an editor changing figures without a source as Epicgenius pointed out above, is to trust that they are being constructive and have a quick dig around to see if it is correct. Or ask if they can provide a source. And yes, I do collaborate and cough up the research. It is easy to forget to leave an edit summary, or not even know what one is. It seems that I lean towards the extreme of assuming good faith in these edits and this is out of step with community expectations where revert-warn is deemed acceptable. To be honest, I sit so far out that I would have expected Danners430's behaviour to result in a topic ban surrounding these edits (eg the "messes" comment) - this is the extent of my lack of understanding.

I did post on Danners430's talk page explaining that VisualEditor is not available in these tables (the majority of edits I saw) making citing difficult, and that the WMF is developing tools to encourage users to edit, but reverting them when they actually try to make a helpful addition is counterproductive.

Danners430's please keep in mind that you are prolific and move very fast:

• Immediately after filing this, they responded on their talk page with a message which included the following - I was writing a reply to your previous comment where you were giving me one chance, I was not aware of the ANI filing (the new message icon did pop up but I did not click it).
• What’s concerning is the subject of this discussion is continuing to edit, and even replied to the ANI notice, without participating here - I immediately stopped any editing relating to you. I would have responded to pings. I wanted to let the discussion gather comments before reading. I thank TonySt for inviting me here.
• For the timeline of your first edit to my talk page, from memory I saw a W notification on my phone, and because the app is useless I turned on my PC where I still had heaps of tabs up that I wanted to deal with relating to finding the source for a revert in your contribs. After I added the source, I read your initial comment.

Being sincere, Special:Contributions/Danners430 is full of reverts and warnings where editors are improving article content (but not sources) and may face severe frustration and confusion as a result of said revert. Danners430 has kindly made it clear that they appreciate me making genuine improvements to articles, and I would like to continue to help out, console and praise these editors also - this is my regular practice in other areas of the encyclopedia. I would appreciate if someone could draft an appropriate quick note I can leave these users, explaining the situation (possibly including a Teahouse link).--Commander Keane (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

There were three edits to which you took umbrage - one where sourced content was removed and two where unsourced content was added. I fail to see how an editor removing perfectly good sourced content without explanation or reason, or editors adding content without reliable sources, is not problematic. As a recent changes patroller, it’s that sort of thing I’m specifically looking out for - I have no clue what the editor’s thought process is, whether it’s vandalism or a mistake. It’s a problematic edit (not vandalism - that’s different), so I revert the problematic edit and leave a welcome or user warning on the editor’s talk page. That is standard practice.

I assume CK is referring to the other edits I make, clearing out long-standing unsourced content from aviation articles… I do adhere to WP:PRESERVE in all but one circumstance, by tagging unsourced content and only removing content that was already tagged for a not-insignificant period. The one time I don’t use PRESERVE is for the destination lists, which have proven to be such a hotbed of unsourced and poorly sourced fancrufting that a cleanup has been long overdue.

If they can point me to a policy that’s being breached by these edits, then I’ll happily stop - but as far as I’m aware I am not breaching any policy by doing recent changes patrolling (removing unsourced content and restoring content removed without explanation), or by tagging and removing unsourced content and removing unreliable sources. This is why I’m rather taken aback by their quite frankly appalling behaviour on talk pages recently. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Commander Keane, this is a misunderstanding of the work that recent changes patrollers do. Namely: recent changes patrollers utilize reverts. In an ideal world, every time we see challengeable unsourced facts or statistics being added, we would stop what we're doing and go researching to find a source, add it to the fact, maybe do some copyediting, then follow up with the editor. Maybe that would only take, say, 5 minutes. And sometimes we do do that. But there's a problem: using advanced patrolling tools we regularly review north of 2000 edits per hour. That five minutes of research means we miss 150 edits of possible BLP violations or vandalism or spam. There is simply no way for us to do that editor's job for every challengeable unsourced edit that we come across. This is an unfortunate consequence of existing in a universe of linear time. So if we feel the information needs a source, we revert and leave a standardized note on their talk page that explains citations.
None of that particularly matters, though. That you don't understand the process doesn't give you carte blanche to accuse a patroller of bullying new users by committing the evil act of RCP. Danners' contributions look similar to every other active rollbacker. Your inflammatory words are unbecoming of any editor, let alone an administrator. Accusing this good-faith and productive rollbacker of being purely destructive is completely out of line. Would you use these words again given a more complete understanding of RCP? TonySt 23:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No. Commander Keane (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Then leave Wikipedia, please. Such reverts are accordingly with our policies. Those warnings are not a violation, so you can't find them "rude," again, accordingly with our policies. If you are not familiar with such arguably fundamental Wikipedia policies, then please request that your admin privileges be taken, because so far it's crystal clear that you don't deserve them. Jako96 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose and indefinite block and a revoke of admin privileges for Commander Keane, as they repeatedly state that edits that clearly violate our policies are not violations, and warning them for such is erroneous. They are casting aspersions, and they have a failure to get the point, being uncivil to and attacking editors. They are CLEARLY not here to build an encylopedia.

Please reply here with "Support." or "Oppose.". Thank you, Jako96 (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as this has been resolved. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I'd want to say that I doubt this is resolved. They are still not accepting their mistakes, meaning this will probably continue instead of stopping. Jako96 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

See above. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure! Now I see it. Although I'm still deeply concerned about them being an admin still. Again, thanks for pointing that out. Jako96 (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose This is far too severe a consequence. A warning, at most. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I wouldn't think so as this is an admin and wouldn't accept their mistake, but seems like they did now, so, sure. I'm withdrawing my request to block. Jako96 (talk) 15:34, 9 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)

Agreed, defending your actions with what effectively boils down to "I do this all the time, I just don't get caught" is a very problematic attitude, and not one that seems to be changing despite a number of editors rasing concern. TylerBurden (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

To be clear: that's not effectively what I said. What the argument boiled down to is that updating military unit commanders this way appeared to be routine because it is commonly used elsewhere without any issues. It's funny that another editor recently reverted the US Army edit that I brought up, even though the information that was there before is also not sourced anywhere in the article. Strictly under these guidelines, that editor should have removed almost every leader listed in the infobox. Now the infobox has information that is both incorrect and not sourced in the article. I agree with Ghawwas that we should move on and put this behind us, I just think it's absurd to be so hostile over a non-malicious edit and a guideline that is applied inconsistently. Also, you tried to connect this to something completely unrelated. I stopped using the Anadolu Agency as a source back in July, and haven't used it since then. Romanov loyalist (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

As noted above, the fact you "successfully" made similar edits elsewhere does not make this edit, or those edits, okay. Any edit that is made without a source for the content that is added on the page that it is added to can be reverted/removed by any editor at any time per WP:V. It doesn't necessarily have to be, mind, but it can be, and once it is it cannot be restored without a source, full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 8 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)

This same account is being very disruptive, and is continuing to revert edits on the NatWest page, with no explanation as to why, despite a discussion already taking place in which they were the only one who disagreed with inclusion.

They are continuously removing sourced content, and breaking MOS. Strugglehouse (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

They are continuing to be extremely disruptive, even after multiple warnings. Please see WP:AN#Temp user being extremely disruptive and reverting edits even after several warnings for more information. Strugglehouse (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING is not going to bolster your case; I've closed the thread on AN since this thread exists. If you want action done, you need to provide specific diffs of misconduct, not vaguely waving at contributions pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't attempting to do this and was just trying to make sure that I was writing in the correct place, as this disruption was continuing rapidly.

I hadn't listed any diffs because almost all of the output from the temp accounts is disruptive, and it is pretty obvious when you look at the account.

Here are examples of what I have reported above:

• Constantly reverting edits without reason (mine and others): Special:Diff/1368373518, Special:Diff/1368374671, Special:Diff/1368370151, Special:Diff/1367975616, Special:Diff/1367975541, and tons more.
• Going completely against MOS, guidelines, and documentation: all the ones above, plus Special:Diff/1367975334, Special:Diff/1367975182, Special:Diff/1367981764, Special:Diff/1367981687, Special:Diff/1367981638, Special:Diff/1367981591, Special:Diff/1367981521, and lots more.
• Not cooperating in discussions and refusing to give any reasons for their actions: User talk:~2026-42613-85#MOS:FIRSTCORP.
• Making random, crazy claims about me without any evidence: User talk:Strugglehouse#Suspected_sock_puppet.
• Continuing after multiple warnings: User talk:~2026-42613-85#August_2026.

Strugglehouse (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if anyone should be blocked as a result of this ANI it's Strugglehouse who is being tendentious in the extreme. I think what the TAs are doing is a good thing by enhancing readability. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Seriously? The temporary accounts are being disruptive and breaking multiple rules, guidelines, and documentation, not complying in discussions, not giving reasons for breaking rules, and continuing after multiple warnings.

I, and multiple other editors, are just trying to follow rules, guidelines, and documentation. It's not just me who is attempting to do so. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Angry editor sending me angry messages.

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

---

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

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Reywas92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm reaching out to get some additional eyes and editorial input on the Great Black Swamp and Grand Kankakee Marsh. I am also writing a complaint.

I added the two articles to the WikiProject Environment page (WP:WPE) just two days ago, and I received some replies from an editor named Reywas92 on the WikiProject Environment Talk page. It is regarding ongoing discussions about Indigenous historical context and visual sourcing.

Recently, the editor raised concerns and suggested removing documented historical presence, treaty contexts, and 19th-century ethnographic visuals, characterizing these verifiable historical additions as "Righting Great Wrongs" (WP:RGW) and mere decoration. I am concerned that invoking WP:RGW to strip out verifiable Indigenous history risks creating a one-sided narrative and leaning into historical erasure, rather than maintaining neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and proper due weight (WP:DUE). Furthermore, the discussion has involved aggressive tone and assumptions about my identity rather than focusing strictly on source text (WP:CIVIL). He assumed that because of the way I wrote, I must be an AI program. I am not. I am clearly human.

Today, Reywas92 has sent me aggressive messages on the WikiProject Environment page, accusing me of using an AI program. I do not. I write well enough not to need one.

I have warned him to act with civility. He has not. I am asking for help. He seems to be deliberately trying to provoke a fight.

I would really appreciate it if fellow editors could review the WikiProject Environment talk page thread, check the inline citations for both Great Black Swamp and Grand Kankakee Marsh (WP:V), and offer their input to ensure the article maintains a complete, academically rigorous, and neutral historical record.

Below is the link to the WikiProject Environment page:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment#c-Reywas92-20260806164400-GeoFAXsafety79-20260805201700

Thanks for your time and guidance. I appreciate everyone’s work on Wikipedia, but please get him to stop.

GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually, no. It's fairly clear that you're using an LLM of some sort to help with your comments, and accusing the editor who called you on it as "angry" is casting aspersions, which is not conducive to a long-term editing career here. Drop the AI, take the suggestions on board, and continue to be a productive editor. Or don't. Your choice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@GeoFAXsafety79, In future, when starting a discussion about an editor at ANI, please leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. — Raihanur (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Raihanur they didn't start this discussion here. I moved it from WT:AN. Izno (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear Sarek of Vulcan,

I am not using an AI. Why are you saying that? Why are you saying that I am using an LLM of some sort? I do not understand why you would tell me not to cast aspersions on someone, then do the same to me. Can we please keep this civil? I do not send aggressive messages to editors. There is no need for that.

Raihanur, thank you for your note. I was unaware of that. I apologize for the inconvenience. GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Sarek, you stated, “Drop the AI, take the suggestions on board, and continue to be a productive editor. Or don't. Your choice.” I’m not using AI. I am a productive editor. In the future, can you please keep things civil and respectful? I do not communicate with anger or disrespect to other editors. Please do the same for me too. Thank you. GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

GeoFAXsafety79, you should realize that, whether you're using an LLM or not, your writing bears several marked characteristics of WP:AISIGNS. What program do you use to craft your replies, or do you do it directly into the browser? Why do you sometimes write a post as if it were a letter? Do you understand why others might think your writing is AI generated? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for calling it a letter. I am actually old. I also do not use social media, so perhaps my use of language comes off as a letter. That observation is correct, and I take no offense to that.

I also have a legal background, so naturally, I like to use bullet points, or make an explanation. Can you believe my first draft of the Kankakee Marsh was over 15,000 words? Thankfully, I learned that the article could be shorter, and it is more effective. However, if you would like, you can see each of my past efforts in the history section where I try to “make sections more concise.” Concise is better.

I do not use any program.

I did, however, look up that AI tool that Reywas92 mentioned he used. It’s called humanizeai dot pro. Google says it is not a reliable tool to detect AI-written text.

Please, again, I am old. I enjoy giving and receiving respect. I do not appreciate insults, or offensive remarks. I ask that everyone please keep things civil. Let us please keep tones neutral. I conveyed to the editor Reywas92 to please not use an aggressive tone. That is all I ask. Please do not blame me and say that this is my fault. I have feelings too. I found his messages to be angry.

I am not casting aspersions on Reywas92. I just want their tone to be not aggressive. I read Sarek’s message above, saying, casting aspersions is “not conducive to a long-term editing career here”. I find that language defensive and threatening. Please, treat each with respect. Everyone. That is all I ask. This is Wikipedia, not social media. Thank you for your questions. GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Part of treating each other with respect is not going around to multiple Wikiprojects, noticeboards, and user talk pages asking for help with an "angry editor". This is against the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 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.

Interesting. I did not know that. Thank you for clarifying this. This is the first time I have ever raised an issue about an editor. I will refrain from repeating that in the future. However, please, don’t be defensive with me. I am not here to harm Wikipedia or its volunteers. But I do expect you and other editors to notice aggression and attempts to bully. That was not me harassing anyone. That was me looking for help. All I was doing was looking for help.

GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I do agree with you that the way this proceeding was handled was very Bite-y in nature. But I'd like to turn your attention to this diff.

I'm surprised someone would mention WP:PERF as their policy of choice when mentioning trimming down the byte content, when WP:PERF actually says not to worry about performance at all. That, and besides that the entire edit reads like LLM slop. It is riddled with AITELLS, as each paragraph tries really hard to sound important even in the most minute changes, or even when there are no changes at all.

Examples of mine, all from the same diff above:

"I will review the text to make sure the inline prose explicitly highlights these regional connections[...]"

"Establishing how these nations identify today, rather than imposing uniform settler labels, is a crucial aspect of[...]"

"The broader network details (such as legislative context and key figures) illustrate how the physical topography[...]"

And especially this sentence: "Regarding the 1860s illustrations of freedom seekers in swamps (such as H.L. Stephens' 1863 piece and 1861 Civil War-era prints): because escaping individuals operated covertly, photographic documentation does not exist. Period artwork and media illustrations represent critical primary visual evidence of how 19th-century society understood wetlands as places of refuge and evasion, which is why the current image captions are explicitly written to highlight the tactical role of wetland terrain in escaping detection." This case is what really made me doubt this user, newer models tend to justify the lack of sources or information a lot when they can't find them.

Emphasis done by me, but I'm sure people used to dealing with AI content generated for articles know what it sounds like. And it definitely is ringing bells here. I know the user is adamant about being human, so to assume good faith, all I can think of is that English may not be their first language and their Human-Made contributions are being processed by a translating agent that uses AI, or to Grammar-Check (like Grammarly). It happens a lot. BrandNewSaint (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Reading through WP:PERF I realize the In a nutshell section is also kinda LLM-Sloppy... BrandNewSaint (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

In my recent experience, there seems to be a phenomenon that, among other things, AI, especially in Wikipedia discussions, writes like a lawyer. And thus lawyers get inaccurately called out as AI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That is also true, same as Nigerian english speakers since ChatGPT (I think specifically) and the like are trained by African, Asian and South American cheap labor and a lot of their mannerisms get picked up by llms. I hope it really is a false positive. BrandNewSaint (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This is now an interesting discussion. Thank you for raising the topic.

I grew up speaking three languages, including English! Well done!

I am very curious to know if perhaps these AI sensors can be better developed, certainly over time. I personally do not appreciate the AI encyclopedia (which I shall not utter by name). It made very offensive remarks about Indigenous peoples, such as:

(1) passing opinions as facts;

(2) steering the article into a hard bias point of view.

I am concerned, of course. That is why I have tried very hard to keep language concise and neutral, but also, to use actual books for sources. AI scrapes blogs and tourist websites, and then attempts to pass it as a source. If AI could learn to sit down and study a book, like we do, then that would be preferable to using a potentially unreliable source. But still, there is no person studying, and looking for meaning.

As for WP:PERF, there is no need to worry, but there is still a duty to take care of the article. It states under the section titled “Editors still have a role to play” in paragraph one: “Nothing in this page is to say that editors should not be mindful of performance… If a page is particularly slow to render, or coming against other limits, then it is useful to edit it or templates and modules to make it perform better.”

Reywas92 correctly identified an issue no one discussed before: the bibliographies I had for both pages were simply duplicating the full footnotes in each article. On that recommendation, I deleted the bibliography for each article, and reduced page size. If Reywas92 notices a particular performance issue, and no one else notices it, then that risks an issue falling through the cracks. I now wonder how many people have had the same performance issue the editor experienced, but never said anything. I wonder what else might be impacting individual performance, depending on how the person reads the material on certain devices.

WP:PERF states in its conclusion, “Be proactive in optimising [British spelling] things where you can measure and quantify a performance impact.” If there is an issue, I don’t want to wait.

I do not know what to believe anymore. Before, Google was just a search engine and now it has AI. I do not know anything about these AI detection tools, or if even Google now is telling the truth if a certain AI tool is beneficial or not. GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

What you’re referring to as Google here is likely Google’s AI-summary of its search results. Meanwhile, most AI detection software fundamentally relies on similar algorithms itself, with predictable results. It’s also a bit of a moving target as the algorithms are being continuously updated, which may not always make them better but does mean that their foibles are subject to change. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't really have time to look at these specific edits, sorry, this is not a statement on whether AI was used either way, but for future reference the signs you mentioned are more characteristic of 2024-25 LLM text (circa GPT-4o) Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan was not being defensive at all. They were pointing out one of the challenges with your behavior in this matter, which some might find offensive or off-putting. Some have mentioned AGF, but it's worth remembering it goes both ways. You assumed @Reywas92 was being aggressive and insulting, when this does not appear to have been the case. You further broadcast this assumption to a number of different pages, which is not optimal behavior (and can in fact be considered uncivil as well). Hopefully this is a lesson learned moment. Intothatdarkness 21:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

For clarification to you and to SarekofVulcan: I posted my concerns to both the WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America and this page, the Administrator’s notice board, because editors Mapsax and GastonN’estPasBon advised me to do so. Mapsax told me to post here, and Gaston told me to post on the talk page so more people could see it. I did so in good faith. I needed help and did not know what to do. I was not canvassing or looking around to see where to post. I literally did not know what to do, and turned to experienced editors for help. Those messages are on their talk boards if you need to see that. As a person of color, I became concerned about the nature of the edits to the Grand Kankakee Marsh article. I am sharing this to clarify why I posted here and on the other talk page. Also, for the record, English is one of my native languages. I am also native in others too. I say this because of the comment you left on the WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America talk page about my language background. However, I will act in good faith and know you really didn’t mean it. Thank you for going over Wikipedia policy with me. GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I said this on the project page: "The examples you're listing, frankly, would not be considered aggressive by most native speakers of English." It does not question your language background. It comments on how most would probably view the comments you considered both hostile and aggressive. With that, I'm disengaging here. Intothatdarkness 02:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

NB: My exact words were "I would consider raising the issue at WP:ANI if the lack of civility escalates." Mapsax (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Mapsax. I appreciated the input. Sorry to bother you with this, but I did not know what do. I felt a little lost. Thanks for your experience in assisting a newcomer. You are a good person. GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not angry and certainly don't want a fight. I am glad you are on Wikipedia writing these articles and continuing their improvement. I am sorry that my responses sounded aggressive, but I am recommending that you avoid using AI and to keep information in the article, including images, directly connected to the subject. There are other articles about these tribes and wetlands that could also use this great content and sourcing that may be good broader historical or environmental context but less necessary for these specific topics. — Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 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.

Thank you for your reply. I just saw your recent edits and can appreciate them. Thank you. Everyone will appreciate them.

Sadly, we do not see each other in real life. We are “stuck” with these forms and templates. I am sure you are a good person.

I went and checked that website you mentioned, humsnizeai dot pro. Google says it is not reliable. Maybe there is a better tool? I can assure you I am human.

GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I ran a comment from GeoFAZsafety79's through both GPTZero (paid) and Pangram (free trial). GPTZero declared 100% confidence that the text was AI, and Pangram said the text was 100% AI-written. The comment also sounds like AI to me. GeoFAXsafety79, you said you are not using "any program". Did you use a website to help write this comment? I'm asking because not everyone considers websites to be "programs". You keep saying you are human, and we believe that, but the question of whether you (a human) are using AI to write comments still needs to be addressed.

BTW I share the concerns that others have expressed above about civility and canvassing in your comments. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This is what I am going to do. I am going to step out of this discussion. I do not want to be a part of this. I am thankful for Reywas92’s apology. I apologize to him because I have no experience using this system to ask for help. Moving on, I am sure everything will be fine.

However, I urge care and caution with AI user tools. I just checked on Google, Clayoquot, and both tools you mentioned are considered unreliable. If anyone who writes an article or edits a page is accused of using AI, and then you insist and insist that they are AI, when in fact they are not, then you risk alienating people from using your website. And the more you insist, and the more you reject my explanations, the more it feels like harassment. No thanks. Sarek, Intothatdarkness, thank you for clarifying how this system works. I appreciate it. Good luck with your work. GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clayoquot "AI detectors" are not reliable and are not an accurate gauge for whether something was AI-written. See WP:AIDETECTION. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 01:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

But there are also many WP:AISIGNS in his comments. This one for example, he included his user name at the end of his message, when signing is already a thing. Although his messages could also be a little mixed, which is still a violation of our policies. Jako96 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The user has a lot of AI generated comments. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StefenTower&diff=prev&oldid=1367890108, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment#c-GeoFAXsafety79-20260804214100-Feedback requested: Indigenous history, human rights, and environmental transfor, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment#c-GeoFAXsafety79-20260805070100-Feedback requested: Indigenous history, human rights, and environmental transfor, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-GeoFAXsafety79-20260806170500-Angry editor sending me angry messages., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-GeoFAXsafety79-20260806195000-Angry editor sending me angry messages., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-GeoFAXsafety79-20260806201600-Angry editor sending me angry messages., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#c-GeoFAXsafety79-20260805222000-Please help. Angry editor for Great Black Swamp and Grand Kankakee Marsh., User talk:GastonN'estPasBon#c-GeoFAXsafety79-20260805202500-Please help. Angry editor for Grand Kankakee Marsh and Great Black Swamp on Wiki, User talk:Mapsax#c-GeoFAXsafety79-20260805202900-Please help. Angry editor for Grand Kankakee Marsh and Great Black Swamp on Wiki. All of them have WP:AISIGNS and also revealed by GPTZero. Jako96 (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clayoquot Spot on. I support an INDEFINITE block since they fail to accept that they use AI (so it seems like they will continue), which they clearly do. I listed some comments I could find. @Reywas92 @SarekOfVulcan @EducatedRedneck. Jako96 (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that they are not using an AI, despite their protestations. In particular, they wrote, Sarek, you stated, “Drop the AI, take the suggestions on board, and continue to be a productive editor. Or don't. Your choice.”, complete with WP:AICURLY, despite them insisting that I do not use any program [to write my comments]. Combined with the generally stilted style, repeated requests to keep things civil and focus on other editors, and lots of WP:RO3. I could easily see it being AI. However, WP:AGF applies, and they could use an MacOS for the curly, this could be their trained writing style, etc. The AI usage may be a red herring, and I think this thread should focus instead on what is provable, namely the WP:CANVASSING (posting about this topic on several wikiprojects and user talks) and WP:ASPERSIONS (characterizing another editor as "angry"), admonish them to avoid this in the future, and see if behavior improves. If there are more smoking gun AI posts, we can revisit this, but for now I feel WP:BITE outweighs any disruption from AI use. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the initial very long reply with the multiple subheadings to Reywas92 was the only one I overtly noticed AI signs in. I think I see them here too. The rest of their posts didn't really give me that impression at first glance, but rather seemed like the posts of someone who was ESL or knew multiple languages. Grain of salt though, I'm not an expert on this topic.

I think them admitting to AI use in that post (if it was used) and not using it in the future would be helpful. Kotthu (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Nguyễn Chế Thanh

Nguyễn Chế Thanh I am the original author of this article on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, and I translated it into English myself. However, I accidentally typed ```, which triggered the Markdown code block filter, and the article was subsequently flagged as LLM-generated. I would appreciate it if an administrator who understands Vietnamese could review the article, verify that it was translated entirely by me, and remove the LLM speedy deletion template.Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Administrators do not have any special privileges over article content, and this not an urgent incident or chronic behavioral issue. You should request this at WP:LLMN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#Nguyễn_Chế_Thanh I already submitted the request, but I haven't received any response yet. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Làm Việc Thiện What do you mean that you accidentally typed ```? You mean to say that by total accident and coincidence, your finger slipped and entered that specific character 3 times in a row? Athanelar (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Làm Việc Thiện Also, in this edit you removed the {{AI generated}} tag with the edit summary All content has been deleted, the issue has been resolved. which would seem to mean you're acknowledging that there was AI generated text, but you removed it; but you're now saying there was never any AI text? Athanelar (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

That is what they claimed in Diff/1368145487 on WP:AIN § Nguyễn Chế Thanh, but in Talk:Nguyễn Chế Thanh § Contested deletion they wouldn't answer the question. They didn't mention the backticks until they were explicitly pointed out in their Wikipedia:Teahouse § Nguyễn Chế Thanh thread.

At first they claimed in Diff/1368063381 here on ANI that the edit filter added the backticks, but then changed it in Diff/1368063840 to say that they accidentally typed them instead. But maybe that's just down to proficiency in English. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar I was entering those characters in the “Sporting achievements of Nguyễn Chế Thanh” table. The table uses templates such as class="wikitable sortable", so I may have accidentally typed the characters incorrectly at the end of the table. I didn't know which part of the article had triggered the Markdown code block filter, so I deleted the entire content. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The table uses templates such as class="wikitable sortable", so I may have accidentally typed the characters incorrectly at the end of the table. Granted, I'm no table formatting wizard, but I'm not sure how these two statements are related at all. I looked up examples of this "wikitable" formatting on other articles and none of them use or require the ``` block at any point, so how does the presence of the class= parameter end up with you typing ``` at a completely different place?

And what do you mean "may have?" You did type those characters, obviously. Athanelar (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Does that issue still matter? What matters most now is whether there are any major problems remaining in my article's current version. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It actually matters very much, yes. Your explanation makes no sense, which suggests that you are being to some extent evasive or untruthful about the extent of your AI use. That is a problem. Athanelar (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

In the WP:AIN § Nguyễn Chế Thanh thread that they started, they also seem to imply that they aren't sure if it was generated or not. I find this sort of hedging and qualifying your own statements with doubt to be odd. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Odd, and precisely the sort of thing AI chatbots tend to when asked to quickly come up with post-hoc plausibly deniable explanations for signs of AI generation. Athanelar (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn @Athanelar I'm speaking directly with you, so why would I need to use AI to explain it? Since the administrators here have not handled the issue, please come over to . Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it's better the discussion stay here, because your lack of a straightforward answer about how you ended up inserting the markdown code block is likely to end up in a boomerang unless you can either actually explain how it came about, or otherwise own up up about your AI use. Please don't close this discussion again as you just attempted to, because these concerns need to be addressed and are relevant to ANI. Athanelar (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

While I can't read Vietnamese so I can't assess the source article, but I can read timestamps and byte counts and there's a series of rapid edits like vi:Special:Diff/75369289 on vi:Nguyễn Chế Thanh that seem off to me. I'm also not saying that edits on a different wikiproject are our concern here on enwiki (they aren't), and the unclosed <ref> tag in the viwiki edit seems more like a human mistake to me, but I would like to hear from LVT how they wrote the source article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@GurkubondinnI usually draft the article in Word first and then add it to Wikipedia, so the content can sometimes be quite large. This helps avoid creating a long history of incorrect edits when an experienced editor is writing an article. The <ref> tags can sometimes be incorrect because I usually use a single source below the achievements table to cite the information in the article. Therefore, an incorrect tag can sometimes cause a <ref> error, but the source itself is still valid; the issue only needs to be fixed. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn If Wikipedia in English is going to be this bureaucratic, please delete the article so that I can recreate it, since the content was translated by me. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not an admin so I can't delete anything, and this seems pretty bureaucratic to me. The only reason that I requested G15 was that it was an obvious AI generation to me. At this point, I think that the problem here is the implausible explanation for the backticks and how you have avoided giving a straight answer to if this was AI-generated or not (as Athanelar has pointed out).

And while I don't have a problem with your explanation of the workflow above (but the problem with the <ref> tag that it was unclosed, not because there was a single source because there were ca. 8 sources), you should know that MS Word now has AI-features built in. There is a setting to disable them, but they are enabled by default, and it is unclear to me if the setting actually disables all of them or not. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I think for me the most salient issue is the completely nonsensical and evasive explanation that The table uses templates such as class="wikitable sortable", so I may have accidentally typed the [backticks] incorrectly at the end of the table which was given and then immediately steered away from when subject to scrutiny. Considering that nothing in the table formatting calls for backticks, and the "templates" (read:parameters) have nothing to do with backticks either, the idea that one could "accidentally... incorrectly" end up inserting 3 backticks at the end of the table somehow as a result of the table formatting is exactly the kind of seemingly sensible but logically bereft word salad that we all know AI chatbots to produce when their users ask them to provide an explanation for the presence of AI signs.

In general, that someone responds to questions about their editing choices with "may have"s and uncertainties is never a good sign. Athanelar (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn@Athanelar If you understand Vietnamese, you can tell at a glance whether it was generated by AI. If you don't know Vietnamese, then even if I explain it to you, how would you know what I translated it from?

Anyway, the administrators have deleted the article, and I have rewritten it without the ``` issue. The matter has been resolved. I find English Wikipedia quite cumbersome at times. I also patrol Vietnamese Wikipedia, and when there is something I can handle myself, I often prefer to deal with it directly and get it resolved. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue still remains of how "the ``` issue" got there to begin with. Athanelar (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

We are talking about the enwiki article here. The question isn't where you translated it from, but how you translated it. I agree with Athanelar here, you still haven't given us a non-evasive answer of why the triple backticks in AbuseLog/44781528 were there in the first place. The current article also seems to be the copy that you saved as User:Làm Việc Thiện/Nguyễn Chế Thanh in Diff/1367787073, so it is more or less the same page as before. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to be frank: please don't be so mechanical about this. I asked someone who is active on Wikipedia to review the article, and they also found no issues related to AI. This was demonstrated in this discussion: Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard#Nguyễn_Chế_Thanh. If you handle things this way, you'll only drive new editors away from writing articles, rather than doing anything helpful for Wikipedia. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

No, we've asked you a pretty straight forward question and I at least would like an answer. By saying "issues related to", you are talking around the question because that isn't what we asked you. You have said that you did not use an LLM or chatbot (Diff/1368145487) and that you created it without the use of AI (Diff/1367787612), so why would there be any issues related to AI? You're the one who submitted this article, so you are also the only person that knows exactly how it was created and therefore you should not need to speculate. Your current claim is that the ``` were there because you accidentally typed ``` (Diff/1368063840), which I find rather strange. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The article was deleted because I accidentally included ```, which triggered the LLM filter. What is there left for me to explain to you? Are you planning to block my account or something? Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I know that because that is why I requested G15 for it. What is left to explain is how and why "the ``` issue" was there to begin with. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The article has already been deleted, so why do I have to explain it to you again? Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, you haven't really explained it yet. And you're actively editing, and generally editors are expected to be open and honest about their editing here. Evasive answers and half-truths are not usually well received. And that article hasn't been deleted, because you copied it into your space in Diff/1367787073 and then moved that page into article space when the first copy was deleted. Sometimes the history even gets restored when that happens, but I can't do that because I'm not an admin. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn If you want to ban my account, then you don't need to do anything else. From now on, I won't contribute to English Wikipedia anymore. If sockpuppets on Vietnamese Wikipedia create promotional articles for English Wikipedia or engage in vandalism, I'll leave them alone. Goodbye. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

What I think happened is that you used an AI chatbot to produce a machine translation your viwiki article into english, and that you accidentally copied the ``` over from the chatbot's reply. The WP:LLMT guideline allows you to use LLMs for machine translation, as long as the four criterion are met, so nothing about doing that in and of itself is sanctionable in any way (nor have I implied that it is).

The edit summary did not attribute the viwiki article as required, so I couldn't have know that this was a machine translation. Providing a WP:TFOLWP-compliant attribution is a requirement of the CC-BY-SA license because the machine translation is a derivative work of the viwiki text (and is also one of the LLMT criterion). But this isn't a real problem because it can be amended by providing licence-compliant attribution in a later edit summary of an edit to the page (and you are encouraged to place {{translated page}} with exact revision ids on the talk page, but that does not satisfy the licence requirements on its own).

But you claim that this isn't what happened. You say that you created it without the use of AI (Diff/1367787612) and that you did not use an LLM or chatbot (Diff/1368145487). That's why I want to know where the ``` characters came from, and how they ended up in the article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

What I am saying here is that I think that what you submitted was an AI-generated machine translation, but that this is only a problem if you are dishonest about it. The LLMT guideline allows you to use an AI to produce a machine translation, but being untruthful about it is a breach of the WP:CIVIL policy and is always a problem. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG proposal

@The Bushranger I'm pinging in case you aren't still following this discussion; given the obvious evasiveness around the question of AI use, directly recreating the article after it was deleted for G15, and now the self-professed intention to WP:FLOUNCE under the pressure, I would suggest that a block is in order here. Athanelar (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think (given the discussion below) a block is in order yet, although I am frowning at the way things have gone here, certainly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Have you compared the version that was tagged with G15 with the current version, which I had an experienced English Wikipedia editor review? Do you have any evidence that I used AI? You should understand that using AI is not prohibited under Wikipedia’s policies. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar The current version is completely different from the version that was tagged with G15. Where is your evidence that I used AI? Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You should understand that using AI is not prohibited under Wikipedia’s policies.

Is there any reason why you didn't started with it here? ~2026-43622-87 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I’m asking you: is the current version completely different from the version you tagged with G15? Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to not write too many replies to you at once, but you addressed me directly here so I will answer. But could you try to keep your responses to individual replies and try to avoid writing too many replies (it can be seen as WP:BLUDGEONING)? This version is different, but I haven't looked at the diffs and edit filter logs to really say if I think that it is substantially different or not. But you are also at the same time saying that neither of them are generated, so I'm not sure why their differences matter. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you compared the version that was tagged with G15 with the current version, which I had an experienced English Wikipedia editor review? We have a system for articles to be reviewed by experienced editors; it's called AfC, and you can now submit the draftified version there.

You should understand that using AI is not prohibited under Wikipedia’s policies. It most certainly is, except for narrow exceptions including translation. Are you now at last admitting that you used AI to assist in your translation? Athanelar (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar If I submit the article and it is reviewed and found not to have been written using AI, what would you lose? Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Làm Việc Thiện You keep missing the point. The article and whether it is now in an acceptable state is totally irrelevant. The salient question here is whether or not you used LLMs in the first place, because using LLMs and lying about it disruptive editing. You're not going to evade this without addressing this problem. Athanelar (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Use of AI on the English Wikipedia is prohibited, with some very narrow exceptions. One of them is machine translation, but you have repeatedly said that you did not do that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn @Athanelar I was the person who proposed introducing the LLM-related speedy deletion criterion on Vietnamese Wikipedia. I invite both of you to take a look at these discussions: and []. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I’ve been discussing this issue with you for nearly a week, yet you keep saying that I’m avoiding the issue. I’ve already explained the reason to you, and whether you believe me or not is up to you. But going around in circles, the conclusion is always the same: you insist that I used an LLM, and even after I explain the situation, the outcome remains unchanged. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you then explain elaborate on why you typed ``` after (correctly) closing the markup for a wikitable, and how the class="wikitable sortable" parameter would have caused you to do that? ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

But going around in circles, the conclusion is always the same: you insist that I used an LLM, and even after I explain the situation, the outcome remains unchanged.

This is a brand new subsection that exists for less than a hour now; it's literally opposite to "going around in circles" and "the outcome remains unchanged". ~2026-43622-87 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and I pointed out that your explanation doesn't make any sense, and since that point you have refused to clarify farther and have only deflected.

To quote myself above; Granted, I'm no table formatting wizard, but I'm not sure how these two statements are related at all. I looked up examples of this "wikitable" formatting on other articles and none of them use or require the ``` block at any point, so how does the presence of the class= parameter end up with you typing ``` at a completely different place? And what do you mean "may have?" You did type those characters, obviously. Athanelar (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn@Athanelar Ultimately, you still insist that I used an LLM. Fine, I admit that I used an LLM—does that satisfy you? I used an LLM for the purposes permitted under the policy: editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing and incorporate them after human review. This is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and other simple mistakes. Editors must ensure that any text copyedited in this manner is still supported by the cited sources.

Editors are also permitted to use LLMs to translate articles from another language’s Wikipedia into English Wikipedia. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I’ve admitted it and explained the situation already. Are you satisfied now? Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Whythis49 and edit-warring in Language policy in Ukraine

Whythis49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is not extended confirmed and have been made aware of WP:RUSUKR but they continue edit-warring in Language policy in Ukraine (this edit is after warning, this one before the talk page warning but after an edit summary with a link to RUSUKR). Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I'm confused as to how the edit the user wishes to make falls under RUSUKR? Changing an interwiki link from Russian to Ukrainian on a topic that is not related to the war stretches even "broadly construed" IMHO, unless there's something I'm missing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The topic is directly related to the war, it was used by Putin as one of the main pretexts for the invasion. Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, do you mean the general topic of language policy in Ukraine or are you talking about that specific bill? The latter doesn't seem possible since it was introduced a year after the invasion. No opinion on the general topic. ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean the general topic (more specifically, Putin's argument is that the use of Russian is suppressed in Ukraine and this constitutes massive human rights violations - which is obviously false but still being widely used). Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If this had anything to do with Russian or even Ukrainian I'd agree that broadly construed it was part of the conflict. Since it's about English I feel it's starting to get distant enough that it's not so clear. An argument could be made it's promoting English over Russian but I feel that's very disconnected. Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not know, the specific edit changed a template that the article can be expanded using the Russian Wikipedia to the one using the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I do not think new users are allowed to make such edits. Ymblanter (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I would definitely back up Ymblanter here - language policy in Ukraine was used, especially earlier in the war, as a Russian casus belli. This is definitely squarely within the CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223: That is very (and unfortunately) true. My concern is that it was Ukrainian vs Russian language policy; the use of English in Ukraine was, I'd wager, rather less contentious, and since this is about the use of English in Ukraine, that's what makes me squint a little. (As CoffeeCrumbs points out, though, that concern is somewhat moot given Whythis49's other edits.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's correct. The article is about the policy of the Ukrainian language being the official language of Ukraine, and how minority languages in Ukraine (like Russian and Belarusian) are treated, the article does not mention the English language that much. The interlang link that lead to this ANI thread is about the English langauge in Ukraine, but that isn't really representative of the article's topic. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Reading our article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia may sort of explain why this could be contentious (I speak neither Ukrainian nor Russian and I have no dogs in this particular race, but as a disclaimer I should point out that I of course support Ukraine). I've gone ahead and implemented what seems like the logical solution to me, and {{ill}}-linked to both ukwiki and ruwiki in Diff/1368148907. I do think that there's a reasonable argument that the Language policy in Ukraine article could be broadly construed to be within RUSUKR though, given how it factors into the whole "the Ukrainian peoples are actually Russian people" rhetoric (paraphrased) from the Kremlin in support of their invasion. I'm not an expert though, but that's just my own gut feeling about this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It should be noted that even if the language policy in Ukraine is not covered by RUSUKR, this editor's edits to Yulia Latynina sure as sugar are. The edits made are about her removal from the "Anti-War Committee of Russia's website" and discussed Ukraine as a "strategic threat to Russia." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

They indeed are, and given Whythis49 has stopped editing, this appears to be moot. As their pattern has been to make a few edits and then vanish for a time, I'll leave a note on their talk page that if they breach RUSUKR again they will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and refusal to build consensus on Oriental Orthodox Churches

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.

Disruptive editing and refusal to build consensus by @TheLionHasSeen on Oriental Orthodox Churches

TheLionHasSeen executed a blanket revert of historical, liturgical, and theological corrections without providing an edit summary.

When I opened a detailed, multi-point thread on the Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches article's Talk page outlining the rationale (regarding Alexandrian Christology, ritual purification, and self-designation), the user completely bypassed the article Talk page. Instead, they issued automated warning templates on my User Talk page, falsely claimed that being an adherent of the faith constitutes a conflict of interest under WP:COI, and explicitly refused to engage on the article Talk page, stating: "Escalate it if you wish. The article's neutrality and integrity have been maintained." Whilst continuing to refuse to address any of the points made in the Talk disucssion

Policy violations:

• WP:STONEWALL / WP:DE: Refusing to discuss substantive content edits on the article Talk page while maintaining blanket reverts.
• WP:CIVIL / WP:AGF: Dismissing an editor's contributions purely based on religious identity rather than addressing reliable sources or article content.

I request administrator intervention to address the disruptive reverts and refusal to engage in consensus building (WP:CON).

Hayhayden (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

1. There was no need to discuss, because you never provided any reliable sources in your contributions; you also admitted or highly insinuated that the introductional information in the lead of the article came from a personal affiliation. Also, even then, on YouTube, many Oriental Orthodox (and also in the sources existing) refer to themselves as "Oriental Orthodox" because it is the common terminology understood for a wider audience.
2. Refer to point number one.

TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Funny how I'm also commenting before I was ever even given a notice, too. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

A genuine commitment to the case, no less. ~2026-43504-59 (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

This looks primarily like a content dispute. "disruptive reverts"? I count one thats relevant to the comment you made - am I missing something? Morwen (talk) 14:40, 7 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.

Hello there, the reason why I made this post is because the revert was done without reasoning and then the user refused to engage in discussion in the talk section, instead telling me to escalate it to admins on my personal page rather than properly discussing on the articles talk pace, I didn't know what else to do since I didn't want to revert his revert from him being unco-operative and then be reported for edit wars and get banned so I contacted admins, thanks a lot! Hayhayden (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Clarification for administrators:

• Self-Designation: My edit did not remove the term "Oriental Orthodox"; it simply noted the factual self-designation used internally by these churches.
• Contradictory Logic: The editor claims my edit is skewed by personal affiliation (WP:COIBELIEF), yet relies on personal YouTube observations to dismiss standard ecclesiastical terminology. The Oriental Orthodox referring to themselves internally as the Orthodox Church is standard, factual information, the distinction "Oriental" is used primarily to distinguish the family from other communions.
• Misuse of COI (WP:COIBELIEF): Religious background is explicitly not a conflict of interest, and adding documented internal self-designation does not violate WP:NPOV.

  I have stated my case and will now step back to allow administrators to review the diffs and conduct. ~~~~hayhayden

Hayhayden (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

1. That self-designation was not necessary, because how does it help improve the article?
2. You deliberately glanced over "(and also in the sources existng)". "Standard and factual", and you continue to disrupt this Wikipedia without any reliable sources.
3. You forget this, yet again, "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI".
4. Finally, all of this conversation without providing any reliable sources and through self-designations, etc. could be WP:POV pushing. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hayhayden, I wanna ask you a question... Really simple question.. Did you use any AI/LLM to generate the comments on the talk page or here in this ANI thread..? — Raihanur (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I used AI to help with the report since I've never made a report on here before and with citing the specific code violations due to not being knowledgeable about the specific names for the code violations but definitely knowing it was against the rules; but the talk page, arguments and points themselves are all mine. Hayhayden (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Would you like to read WP:LLMTALK? Morwen (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to that policy, I wasn't aware of it previously, I'll refrain from using any LLMs entirely, even for formatting or looking up policy codes, and will write everything strictly myself, thank you for the headsup! Hayhayden (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

So you deliberately broke the rules despite knowing they existed? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 15:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Their comment is not well written but in context its obviously a claim that the it they are claiming they knew was against the rules was the other users' conduct... Morwen (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

This is about as confusing as watching a wheel trying to spin, fly, and walk. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

And the AI has diligently assisted you by pointing you to policies which do not exist; in this case WP:COIBELIEF. Please don't decide of your own volition that something is "against the rules" without any knowledge of the matter and then try to get an AI to figure out the details for you. Being a member of the church you're editing about absolutely can constitute a COI if it impacts your ability to edit neutrally. Athanelar (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Surely by this logic then the person who reverted my change also has a COI then given they are also a Eastern Christian, did a blanket revert without any messages, and refused to discuss in the Talk section. If I am performing a COI by being an Oriental Orthodox Christian changing the Oriental Orthodox Churches wiki to be more accurate, then surely the Eastern Christian who blanket reverts the whole page, refuses to engage in discussion and when prompted simply says take it to the admins, also constitutes a COI, if not more-so, since I don't see what an Oriental Orthodox has a COI by making changes that literally just correct blatant misinformation, but I can definitely see how a Christian of another denomination refusing to allow misinformation to be corrected and refusing to even engage in discussion is a COI Hayhayden (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

That may well be the case, sure. Either way this is a content dispute which should be handled in the appropriate manner and not at ANI. Athanelar (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar, @Electricmemory, @Morwen, @Raihanur, how do I press forward after @Hayhayden sends me a warning notice on my personal talk page to stop "disruptive editing" as if he has any WP:INTIMIDATION authority. This isn't going the way he wants to be according to my own eyes (correct me if I'm crazy), and so now he's using the warning templates to try and intimidate me. He still cannot provide any reliable resources and is using conjecture and AI at this point. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

This is getting annoying, and I'm just conclude someone must be WP:NOTHERE. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Where did I blanket revert the entire article? Where did I refuse to discuss? I gave you WP:COMMONSENSE points there and here. You offer nothing more than conjecture and intimidation, with the addage of harassing me on my talk page now... - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

And, one final word for now. I am an Eastern Christian, yes. But, if you look back years into my contributions, you see that I positively have contributed to every Christian denomination possible. Also, I am Eastern, but I will not publicly proclaim what my religious belief or tradition in that family of Eastern Christanity is because it doesn't matter. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of COI does not prohibit people who are adherents of a faith from making policy compliant edits regarding matters related to that faith. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Wilson Goatama is ICANTHEARYOU

Wilson Goatama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an occasional editor editing in airports and aviation. They’ve had innumerable warnings about adding unsourced content which they’ve summarily blanked , so they’re aware of their talk page even if they refuse to use it.

Most recently, they’ve been repeatedly using unreliable sources (WP:AEROROUTES) which has persisted despite numerous attempts to inform them of the fact they’re using bad sources - .

Given their most recent edit using this source is yesterday (6 August), and they were given a level 4 warning (which I deemed appropriate given their previous warnings) in June, I have to assume they are WP:ICANTHEARYOU as they refuse to react to talk page warnings. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I suspect this person might not speak very good English- the majority of their editing is specifically in Indonesian aviation articles. Still not the right behavior for them to be doing though. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 23:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

That is entirely possible - but at the risk of sounding harsh, that’s not an excuse on the English Wikipedia… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh definitely not, quite the opposite. Believe me I've had my share of annoyance with non-English speaking editors here... Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 07:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting here that the user in question has lengthy gaps in their editing history. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the editor from articlespace until they respond and acknowlege. Mfield (Oi!) 02:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Repeated attribution of motives by Agents47 and Oramfe

I am requesting a review of repeated comments by User:Agents47 and User:Oramfe concerning my supposed motives in ongoing disputes involving Itsekiri and Yoruba material. I’m reporting the particular incidents below:

• Special:Diff/1367838103 – In an 5 August SPI (now resolved), Agents47 characterized my alleged “common editing behaviour” as saying that Itsekiri is "completely separate from Yoruba" and "removing anything that links them more closely". They specifically mentioned "language classification, crowns, origins, cultural influence". Even though this is all baseless as the language classification under the article I rewrote put Itsekiri as a closely related language to Yoruba and describes the Itsekiri cultural connections to the Yoruba.

• Special:Diff/1368199502 – On 7 August, Agents47 stated that I was "finding more reasons for the material to be deleted."

• Special:Diff/1368200276 – I then explicitly asked him: "please do not assume motive for my actions or I will report you for conduct. Simply address the issues raised or leave it to other editors."

• Special:Diff/1368204097 – Less than an hour later, Agents47 wrote: "I do not want to accuse you of having a particular motive, but..." and then described a "repeated focus on removing or changing material that connects Itsekiri and Yoruba". Again, none of this was happening. They just kept speculating motiveswhile ignoring the actual points I was raising on the disputed content

• Special:Diff/1368228141 – Later that evening at Talk:Kingdom of Warri, Agents47 stated that the discussion "no longer appears to be about improving the article", but about removing material because it was previously added by a blocked user, as well as "repeatedly removing material that discusses the connection between Itsekiri and Yoruba."

The other editor ‘’’Oramfe’’’ joined the discussion at the talk pages today and proceeded to make similar baseless characterizations on my “motive”, in his first comments too lol:

• Special:Diff/1368207697 – Oramfe stated: "Tracing the editing history, the motive is actually very explicit. Not an accusation at this point."

• Special:Diff/1368208946 – After I rejected the inference being drawn from my edits and explained that the content disputes should receive formal review, Oramfe responded: "So, yes it does say something about your motive..." and then characterized my edits as “disruptions”.

I don’t have any objection to criticism of my edits but neither of them have shown any willingness to approach the disputes with good faith. Instead, they keep inferring underlying motives for disputed contents. I spent a number of hours yesterday, explaining the reasons for the dispute and Wikipedia’s rules over and over to them. Rather than responding in good faith, they repeatedly accuse me of having “motives”. An entire day was wasted explaining Wikipedia rules to both of them only to be accused of having ulterior motives at the end. Simply for wanting to correct non-factual information about the Itsekiri people.

I believe this is at the very least against WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Given, the repeated motive accusations from these editors, and that I already gave Agent47 a warning a few days ago, and also the fact that I had not made any such accusations to either of them to preempt this- I’m not confident their approach to the matter would change so I believe sanctions are necessary. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Itsekiriwriting (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Itsekiriwriting, In the future, whenever starting a discussion about an editor at ANI, please leave a notice on their talk page. And BTW, User:Agents47 is already blocked for sockpuppetry. — Raihanur (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Will leave the notice now, thanks! Just found about the block too, hooray!! Itsekiriwriting (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The irony is difficult to miss. They were the one who filed an SPI against me. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Literally, five noticeboard discussions are ongoing about the same editors, all opened by the same editor at the same time... -,- I’ve never seen anything like this before...

1. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is this Bascom-derived Yorubaland map, original synthesis?
2. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Kingdom of Warri crown reconstructions and WP:Original images
3. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#“Degree of Presence of the Yoruba” map: original research
4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bascom-derived Yorubaland map lacking POV and given undue weight
5. this one

Probably some/all of them need to be closed. — Raihanur (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if this was outside of protocol. However, they disagreed with every dispute I raised and refused to accept the changes unless a formal process compelled them to do so, despite me presenting ample and obvious, repeatedly for almost the entire day. It seemed to me that if I waited for each particular dispute to be formally handled before moving on to the next one, it would take forever to correct the many issues in the articles. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Obvious evidence* Itsekiriwriting (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This user's behaviour is odd. Dolpina (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary.. — Raihanur (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Lol. Okay,sure. Dolpina (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. I will look up how to close them in one moment. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I remember seeing you in the edit history for one of the Yoruba articles. It is strange that you would come here just to state that my behavior is odd when your conduct is not even the one that is in dispute. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Your edit warring is what made me request the page protections that are now installed on those pages. You kept reverting, instead of reaching concensus on the talk pages, and now spammed the notice boards. It doesn't have to be my conduct you have issues with, but I saw this happening when it started days ago. I think you should read Wikipedia rules on guidelines and how to handle conflict resolutions. Dolpina (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, like I’ve already stated, I’m fine with my noticeboard discussions being closed if they violate policy. However, I don’t see how this issue can be resolved when the article has editors who refuse to acknowledge the most basic of fallacies in the claims presented in the articles. I believe it was you who reverted an edit with the edit summary of “use talk page”. That is, you did not even address the edits I made or my own edit summary. I also notice that you said you requested the page protections that are now installed on the Yorubaland and Yoruba people articles. However, upon checking, I can see it was Agent47 who requested those protections. Is this an indirect confession of a Sockpuppet account? Itsekiriwriting (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

How lovely, you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet. More than one person can submit protection requests btw. I submitted mine, whoever Agents47 is submitted theirs. Assuming good faith is one of those Wikipedia rules btw. Don't throw out accusations around willy-nilly. Dolpina (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Agents47 was in fact blocked for being used as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware. Dolpina (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

My apologies then. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

My first introduction to/Interraction with the user Itsekiriwriting was actually on the 20th of July on Wikimedia commons when I got two notifications in a row about a map I created and uploaded some 9.1/2 years ago which was nominated for deletion by them. While that was not exactly surprising at the time as other editors have such rights, I found it just a little bit concerning that they had not attempted any prior discussions or resolutions on what exactly was wrong with the now longstanding file (map), but instead, wanted it deleted instantly... So I did the right thing and went ahead to check their reasons for the deletion nomination. The reasons given were that "The map was unsourced and self created", and that "the boundaries in it were presented as factual", and that "The file page provides no reliable published source supporting the boundaries shown", and also that "its unsupported and disputed boundaries make it misleading." I went into the deletion nomination discussion and made it known there that it would be better if they actually went to the file discussion page and opened a discussion on the issues raised, and tag my handle there as the file creator, which they didn't. That was [RIGHT HERE].

As a matter of fact, I was a bit busy at the time and had not made any recent edits/contributions across wikipedia and its affiliated sites for about a month, so I was relying on their notification pings for updates on the issue. None came.

Little did I know, Itsekiriwriting had actually been quite busy on Wikipedia edit warring across several pages! using both his current ID and his now banned I.P second account: ~2026-38357-34, such as; [HERE] on Yorubaland or [HERE] on Yoruba people. where he was deleting the files and replacing other text while consensus/decision had not been reached on anything. These were also on stable versions of these articles. He actually started since at least the 15th of July that we know of. Concerning the status of [One of the maps] he wants deleted, I have added the reference to the file description and to avoid repeating myself, a history of discussions on how I addressed his points can be gleaned [HERE] and [HERE], and I would really appreciate it if an admin can weigh in on the issue as all his objections has been cross-reference checked and I have reached the only temporary logical conclusion with them on that.

They had also been voiding out referenced/supported/attributed contributions from other users and replacing them with the version he thinks looks or works better, solely on the merits of what he characterizes as either 'unsupported', 'redundant', just a rewrite, such as on Itsekiri people, or [HERE] on the Kingdom of Warri article. Sometimes, for no reason at all, such as [HERE] (05:36, 16 July 2026) where he removed the Ilaje (Another Yoruba subgroup which also has a presence albeit much smaller in Delta State) as a group in the state for absolutely no reason.

Another user had advised him to avoid overhauling large bodies of text under the guise of improving articles, but to instead use citation tags in sections of text in articles which he thinks are either poorly cited, failed verification test or unsupported etc... But I am sure that also fell on deaf ears based on how they replied the advise.... They said: "I am not obligated to add a citation tag to every unsourced claim I see.", completely ignoring the fact that the main idea behind that advice was a way forward on avoiding the constant and ongoing edit warring between the parties involved in the article. Then and again, it's not like they were ever in the habit of using the said tags at all to begin with, (rather they simply resort to wholesale deletions). Besides, the claim in question was not even "unsourced" but rather, they contend/dispute an artist's reconstructions from actually sourced writings based on eye witness account from HERE. and HERE. I am actually one of the most active recent contributors to the Itsekiri people page, and all of my previous work has been completely deleted since my absence, so I have a keen interest in what is unfolding. It sounded to me that they were not willing nor ready to yield any ground, think their own interpretations/opinions are supreme and they were determined to remain persistent in approach, completely averse to consensus building. [It's ALL HERE]

All these, I later got to know after my return to Wikipedia 2 days ago. I have been quite busy (I still am actually).

Concerning what he describes as a baseless characterizations on his “motive” from me above, and the wider issue, It was not a personal attack, I made the earlier statement quoted above because I do think that the user Itsekiriwriting is on wikipedia with a pre-loaded motive, which shouldn't be a problem in and by itself as people join for various reasons, but I am worried his approach to articles concerning the Itsekiri and the wider Yoruba and/(or)Yoruboid people is one of WP:NORGW, 'correcting a great wrong/injustice' and pushing a certain view/position of inter-relationships between the afore mentioned people / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, leaning towards Ideological battling, and I am saying this with all sense of respect for everyone and Wikipedia itself, simply by taking a look at his editing history since the middle of last month where he has obstinately engaged in several back-and forths with many other contributors (who have reverted several edits from his two I.Ds) starting immediately they joined. I think, the previous stable version of the Itsekiri people article should be returned to and gradually reworked from there, one piece at a time. Other editors actually worked it to that point he met it at. If the Yoruba pages had not been protected yesterday, by Rosguill he might have returned there today either edit-warring or voiding longstanding contributions. It has been the trend.

To all involed, forgive all my typos, and thanks for lending me an ear. Oramfe (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

To close, this is actually what they think of this whole scenario (basically a summary), in a reply laced with an attack and insults towards another Itsekiri editor (imploring them to stop disruptive editing and asking them to have a productive discussion while quoting wikipedia's content policies), and the Yoruba people... My prior observations are actually not out of place that they are indeed not on Wikipedia to build Wikipedia at all. They have basically assumed 'Ownership' of the pages they edit about the Itsekiris, we all are irrelevant tenants basically.

My edits on the Itsekiri Wikipedia page are based on information derived from established works on the Itsekiri people such as from Lloyd and William Moore. They are not false interpretations which seem to seek to damage the Itsekiri ethnic identity for the purpose of attaining cheap political protection from the Yorubas. Since, the Wikipedia talk board communed before they decided to put such self-destructive material on the Itsekiri Wikipedia page, I do not see why I should now consult them before I remove it. Therefore, the only route is for you to report me to the appropriate Wikipedia administrator. I will not discuss with those who seem to be self-hating Itsekiri people on what material should be on the Itsekiri Wikipedia page. [DIFFS HERE]

AND

I have just fully reviewed the set of changes you made. Why? What do we gain from making baseless claims on our identity in order to pander to Yoruba people? Are we so weak and undignified that even our identity is up for grabs? Itsekiriwriting (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Says a whole lot. Quite intriguing, that they can even bring up user conduct issues here at all. Oramfe (talk)

Oramfe (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Now, you are accusing me of taking “ownership” of the Itsekiri people page lol. While bringing up matters that were already addressed in a past ANI as if they address the claims you yourself have made to me. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you make those remarks or not? If this: (I will not discuss with those who seem to be self-hating Itsekiri people on what material should be on the Itsekiri Wikipedia page.) is not assuming 'ownership' of a page, then I don't know what is. Oramfe (talk) Oramfe (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and they were handled in a past ANI. This ANI is for your own claims towards me, not for claims I made in the past and have already been resolved. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I also think it is VERY appropriate to bring it up because you are basically reporting my supposed "mischaracterization" of your motives, when you have made it quite plain and do not hide it yourself. What seems to be the the issue. You assumed ownership of the page. And it was from your own userpage, not an Noticeboard incident Oramfe (talk) Oramfe (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. Please address the claims you made rather than bringing up claims that have been resolved in a past ANI. If you say I have assumed ownership of an article today, substantiate that from my actions and not from claims that have been long resolved in a past ANI, at which point, my version of the article wasn’t even active. So I don’t understand how I could have “taken ownership” of it.

Also, the person I made those claims to (Repair it) has now been banned for sockpuppetry. Every one of their disputed claims in the Itsekiri people article that were able to be examined by the admins in the ANI, were proven to be unsubstantiated by the source. It is not for nothing that an admin said, they used “dubiously sourced” material. These are the same claims you have vaguely called “well sourced”. Anyways, I do not have the energy to being go back and forth with you on simple matters. When an admin comes, they can intervene and set the direction of this case. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

"None of this is relevant" — Maybe to you. You say I am bringing up irrelevant issues and not addressing the 'claims' (More like observations) I made, but that is exactly what I am doing! Does the fact that they (other user) are now banned change what you think of the situation before you knew they would be banned for block evasion or your own wrongdoings in disparaging the Yoruba people and insulting them? A banned user can be unbanned next week or this very minute. You were previously banned yourself and unbanned after you appealed it. Going by your logic, that makes all the previous issues voided?

The Administrators will surely have a say, that is not an issue. Oramfe (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I have not disparaged the Yoruba people or insulted them. My claim was that the Itsekiri article should not be written to pander to the Yoruba people. This was inappropriate to say in Wikipedia, yes, but it is not an insult or disparagement to the Yoruba people. The Itsekiri article should be written on the basis of the Itsekiri people, not another group. And it should reflect the strongest available scholarship, this is in accordance with Wikipedia’s content policies. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

My logic was that mistakes that have already been settled in an ANI should be regarded as such. If you’re suggesting that the administrators may accept Repair it and Agent47’s appeal and unban them, then that is the administrator’s decision. I don’t know what you want from me. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything. I am simply following your logic when you say things like "Also, the person I made those claims to (Repair it) has now been banned for sockpuppetry" as some sort of justification for your own actions, and then reminding you of your own previous ban for a similar issue albeit now resolved. That a user is banned does not excuse your conduct toward them such as calling them names and basically 'shoeboxing' their edits into your own mental picture without proof. At the end of the day, they were banned for block evasion, not "horrible editing" or being a "self-hating Itsekiri person".

You say that you didn't disparage Yoruba people, but it is obvious that you did. That is exactly what this remark right here is: They are not false interpretations which seem to seek to damage the Itsekiri ethnic identity for the purpose of attaining cheap political protection from the Yorubas. Since, the Wikipedia talk board communed before they decided to put such self-destructive material on the Itsekiri Wikipedia page, I do not see why I should now consult them before I remove it. — Maybe double check what it means to disparage something. As a matter of fact, that very statement (as well as others from you) speaks more of your own intentions on the article and what you think and intend it to look like since that was your interpretation of the extant state of affairs.

Other editors have suggested to you previously that you should highlight the statements which according to you were POV and let them be discussed as a better approach, but you didn't think much of it either. The Itsekiri people article has always been written on the 'basis of the itsekiri people' and no one else. However, their ancestral relations to the Yorubas, their inclusion as a Yoruba subgroup by certain schools of thought, artistic recreations of what was described by eye witness accounts as "the actual crown of the sovereign at Warri", and various other reports on the origin of the Itsekiri, amongst other things which you seem not to enjoy seeing on Wikipedia and want unmentioned because you think they represent a 'minority opinion' will actually be factually represented. Who made the decision that those opinions were fringe or even a minority? Case in point, this is what the Nigerian Willinks commission of 1968 actually had to say about the position and general ethnic sentiments of the Itsekiri:

11. We have dwelt on the affairs of this small people, partly because among their number are included a more than proportionate share of the leading people of the Western Region, but more as an example of the difficulties that lie in the way of any proposal that seeks to solve the problem of minorities by territorial division. Most of the Itsekiris claim that as they speak a Yoruba tongue the Warri Division— which "belongs" to them — and all its inhabitants should be excluded from a Mid-West State and should be included in the Ondo Province with the Yorubas. But such a solution would be bitterly resented by the Ijaws, Ibos and Urhobos, who are together a majority in the Division...... On the other hand to include the Warri Division in a new Mid-West State would be resented by most of the Itsekiris, who are the traditional rulers and who still possess much of the land and the more important posts.

Even assuming and working under the assumption that they are minority opinions (not so), what part of wikipedia says minority opinions must be deleted or totally expunged from the concerned articles where both views exist? At the risk of going too far off on a tangent, I'll stop here. Ohhh.... and I don't 'want' anything from you. Just substantiating my observations on your editing habits, past and present.Oramfe (talk) Oramfe (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This is very strange. It is as if you don’t read to the end of a sentence. I said the banned user was determined to include materials that weren’t substantiated by the source during the ANI, hence “dubiously sourced”. Therefore, when you say that the materials were “well-sourced”, it is contradicting what admins themselves have found. That was my entire point, I don’t know what it is you’re trying to saying.

And I did not disparage the Yoruba people. It is utterly peculiar that you think that the current version of the Itsekiri article which tells the Itsekiri story from the strongest available scholarly sources to be “disparaging the Yoruba people”, simply because they do not make them as much the centre as you would like. However, it is your opinion and it is not relevant to me on the matter of what should be in the article. An article should reflect the strongest ‘’’scholarly’’’ views. If non-scholarly views, minority views or views that are superseded are included, then they should be qualified as such and given the appropriate minimal weight in the article. Such views should definitely not be written as ‘’fact’’. As for whether such views should even be included in the articles in the first place, they can but they do not always need to. Not every single claim that exists must be included in an article. There is no case where this is done. WP:DUEWP:BESTSOURCES, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS are all essential rules when deciding what must go into an article.

The irony in the whole thing is that, if the majority and stronger scholarly treatment of Itsekiri history, the Itsekiri ethnic group as a distinct ethnic group, and the Itsekiri language as a distinct language is knowingly undermined, the person doing so could actually be considered to be disparaging the Itsekiri people. So again, I find it very funny that it is the Yoruba people whom you believe to have been disparaged in this entire scenario. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, this was resolved in a past ANI with Repair it. What does this have to do with present claims by you that I have taken “ownership” of the Itsekiri people article? Itsekiriwriting (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It's got basically everything to do with it. Read above... ^^ Oramfe (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Says a whole lot. Quite intriguing, that they can even bring up user conduct issues here at all. Oramfe (talk)

Oramfe (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

So if I had gone against conduct in the past, I can no longer bring up current conduct issues with other editors? Is there a Wikipedia rule for this or what is your logic? Itsekiriwriting (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It is not a "Conduct in the past" It is all part of your repeated cycles of arguments and attacks pertaining to the very same topics. So no, they are not disjointed issues at all.. You made those remarks barely days ago, and I should think very well shows your state of mind on this whole issue. Afterall, we think before we type.Oramfe (talk) Oramfe (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

If you believe a conduct issue from me that was resolved in a prior ANI is not in the past then you should be able to substantiate similar claims from me since after the ANI. And no, none of those remarks were made a few days ago. They were all prior to the first ANI which was weeks ago. Your accusations to me, however, have been within a few days. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It is funny how you are asked to defend your accusations, and you double down and make more accusations. I never made a second account or hid my identity. It was an auto-created account made by Wikipedia for when a user is logged out. The other editor Agent47 submitted an SPI on that very matter and it was resolved. Interestingly, Agent47 is now banned for having an actual sockpuppet. It is also strange that you characterize my edits as removing supported information from actual users without ever being able to defend how exactly they are supported. Many times these statements in the article are written in POV when there are substantive scholarship works with a contrary view on the matter. Other times, the claims on these articles hardly or not at all substantiated. Rather than responding with the source quotation that supports your claim, you revert the edit and are now accusing me of having no reason for my edits.

And yes, I do not need to use the talk page before edit I make. When an edit is made or a claim is deleted, it is the responsibility of the person restoring the claim to be able to substantiate it. You yourself, do not use the talk page before every edit. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't use the talk page evry single time I edit. But when there are editing disputes and warring going on and other editors are asking me to maybe come have a discussion in the talk pages and on my own user page, I don't double down and call them "self-hating ", "weak" or "undignified" and then double down that I am not going to discuss with anybody on what to post or how to edit.

Your earlier paragraphs have all been addressed. Whether the I.P making the editing was a genuine oversight or deliberate is of little concern to us right now, what matters is what the I.P address was doing while your username was logged out. It was warring. I won't be making repetitive arguments Oramfe (talk) Oramfe (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Lol. Again, bringing up comments I made weeks ago does not substantiate remarks you made to me just the other day. Funny enough, your accusations towards me were made in response to my messages ‘’within the talk page’’. And this was after over 8 hours of conversing on the talk page. So using my unwillingness to use the talk page as of a few weeks ago as some kind of justification of the accusations that were made to me, is ridiculous. Not to mention, the accusations that were made to me had nothing to do with unwillingness to use the talk pages but were of claims of wanting to ‘remove anything Yoruba’, remove anything Yoruboid’, ‘remove language classification’, ‘remove Itsekiri any connection between Itsekiri and Yoruba’. Can you show me in the present version of the Itsekiri article which I wrote, how there is no mention of Yoruba in there, how the linguistic classification has been removed, how every connection between Yoruba and Itsekiri has gone? Itsekiriwriting (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

26 July to yesterday is a little over a week, not "Weeks ago" like some faraway incident long passed under the bridge. You are still actively editing and discussing the same set or articles and raising the same set of points. But suddenly, you think I am making a baseless observation about your editing history? You edit warred right into yesterday the 7th of August right after both your regular and "log out I.Ps" were banned and and then unbanned on the 6th, evidently you were not willing to make any constructive behavioral changes. What accusations were made towards you by me that wasn't either expressly stated or displayed by you first?Oramfe (talk) Oramfe (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

ARKA DAS 2008

• ARKA DAS 2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sylhet Government Pilot High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single purpose account ARKA DAS 2008 is exerting ownership over the article about their school in order to include content that is not verifiable and not encyclopedic, despite repeated warnings from multiple editors. Needs a block to, at a minimum, get their attention. May need to be blocked from editing Sylhet Government Pilot High School indefinitely because of their demonstrated inability to manage their conflict of interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I indef-bplocked them from that article. A while ago on their talkpage, someone uncovered:

• Arka Das 2008+444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(stale, not bothering to act on it) which is clearly the same person by username and edit focus. I stumbled upon:

• ARKA DAS 200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(stale, not bothering to act on it) which in addition to the obvious username, their deleted edits indicates a connection and possibly-red-herringly hints at a connection to the User:Bruno pnm ars mess. DMacks (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

ARKA DAS confirms their connection to the school. DMacks (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Subsequent activity shows that the contributor, despite claiming all manner of skills, is only 18 and hasn't yet grasped what Wikipedia is all about, therefore I have extended the block. Deb (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

sigh. Yeah, that sounds about right. DMacks (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Continued incivility from Hargitaihi

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

---

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

Firstly, I would like to make it very clear that this report is about Hargitaihi's incivil conduct, and the notability of their draft is irrelevant to this case.

Timeline:

• April 24: You also discredit the work of the editors of Hungarian wikipedia. If they accepted these as reliable sources why you think you know it better, how come you discredit them. You hide your criticism behind generic problems and you did not mention any concrete problems.
• warned April 24
• April 30: You must be very malevolent even to raise that I am trying to submit two different entries. Actually, you are since you did it. Totally baseless. Your claim is totally baseless and you behave as a judge but even for jusdges people are innocent until the opposite is proven and you promptly say we all are guilty who try to add something to wikipedia.
• April 30: Hello Author of Erzsébet Illés. A wikipédia rohadék szerkesztői mindkettőnk szócikkét ki akarják nyírni. [...] Ezek kinyírnak mindenkit aki nem amerikai. transl. The bastard editors of Wikipedia want to delete both of our articles. [...] They're out to get anyone who isn't American.
• warned April 30
• April 30: My decades long impression is when I edit a professional topic, wikipedia editors claim they know better. [...] I appreciate reviews and criticism but you guys just reject eveything without specifying which in my 20 years longteaching experience is the worst approach to review an article, wikipedia or other. So No, first they are not editors but reviewers who behave like owners of knowledge and the stone of wisdom.
• April 30: Ami érték, azt meg blokkoljátok. Éljen. Mivel nem ismerlek titeket, nem tekinthető personal attacknak. transl. You block anything of value. Hurray. Since I don't know any of you, this can't be considered a personal attack.
• April 30: And YOU want to judge this? And you are the decision maker based on your subjectiv ignorance?
• warned April 30
• June 3: Your malicious comment is just as bad as it is.
• June 3: how can you at all judge me without even reading what i did. [...] You have multiple notability options and how can you judge it by not even knowing the text and context
• June 3 (see Wikipedia:Godwin's law): You first tried to persuade me that I am two persons writing two parallel articles. All malicious. i am not but you will delete it by saying that I am two without any proof? Of what will you use to destroy other peoples work based on your emostional malicious subjective jugement, not even saying any concrete problem just general problems like in the worst dictatorship show trials?
• warned June 3
• June 3: Your role as gatekeeper is to enable the communuty to flourish not to block it with unsupported claims.
• July 16 WP:SHOUTING: This is NOT MY DRAFT! DO NOT DISPUTE WITH ME ABOUT THIS DRAFT. IT IS NOT MINE.
• July 16 shouting: I HAVE MADE IT CLEAR MONTS AGO AND NOTHING HAPPENS. YOU JUST KEPP THIS AS DRAFT FOREVER?
• July 16 again shouting: YOU SAID I SHOOULD NOT DELETE ANYTHING BUT AFTER THAT YOU DONT EVEN LOOK AT THIS PAGE. WHAT CAN I DO?????
• August 8: Responding to MSK decline: it is based on not reading the text. [...] But instead of reading my entry, you just said it is Ai, good bye. It is my text, my sources. Spending 30 years in academic research I dont think that you can judge if my sources are reliable when you dont even spend time in reading the text. [...] Every rejection is inconsistent and your judgejments are based on not reading the text. This is very simple abuse of power that is extensively documented on wikipedia
• August 8: You could also say that the color of my eyes are not OK for you. [...] Your claim about the lack of Notability evidence is based on simply not reading my text [...] Shall I say please follow the links? No because you dont have time for it.

As you can see, they continued their incivility, personal attacks, and failure to assume good faith after four warnings. Everyone is allowed to express their dissatisfaction, but this tone goes completely against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. No one can talk like this to volunteers who spend their own free time trying to help this project. Administrative action is clearly warranted. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

attacking me is again abuse of power. I have listed with evidence and completely civil arguments how I feel that your rejections were not based on evidence. The notability was tour first cause of rejection therefore it is absolutely not irrelevant because it was one of the main arguments from your side which was unbased. Now you want to block me or whatever you want to as a last resort of proving you are right - would you call it academic style argumentation? My other entry, conpletely similar to this, was accepted without quuestion. You started rejecting this and your editor collagues continued your unbased rejections. So there is even a test a and b case where it is evident that the problem is not me or the text but the persons of the editors. ~2026-43735-25 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

cutting out quotations from context and the actual work i did is againstt normal journalistic ethical guidelines therefore your composition is again shows bad intentions ignoring the work hours i put into wikipedia, a collaborative project. I just cant believe you focus pn this instead of the acual content. I cant believe this. Henrik ~2026-43735-25 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

btw i am a volunteer too which you seem to forget. ~2026-43735-25 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

what i can add is that beside "rejected" you never constructively helped me in improvimg the entry. You behave as my boss which you are not. Now you report me to some wikipedia authority, discourage and try to frighten me instead of actual help, which is all ABUSE of POWER ( emphasis by me). ~2026-43735-25 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, then, this would be a good place to provide the context that would make this look a lot better than it appears.

The bastard editors of Wikipedia want to delete both of our articles. [...] They're out to get anyone who isn't American.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

this is my true honest opinion based on my observations. clear. you or you fellow editors gave me an advice on what a good entry would look like. It was a living american professors page very very clearly self promotional.

Now you can continue attacking me instead of building wikipedia for the following words: "Wikipedia is a non-profit site that is policed by hundreds of volunteers, yet very few of these volunteers have the experience and knowledge of a professional writer/editor. A cultural bias has seemed to have washed over many entries on the site, as general consensus replaces cold, hard facts. There is also a matter of vandalism, which the site is susceptible to. These problems, coupled with the almost obsessive behavior of many of the volunteers (try placing an external link on the site without having it removed), have led people to other sources for information." ~2026-43735-25 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

And let me make my opinion clear: I think that saying (redacted) is much more "civil" that rejecting a work of a volunteering person who put many hours of work into it without reading it and/or providing actual review comments (as civil scientists do) on why it was rejected and how you guys think it can be improved. Even if this is a normal way of how wikipedia works, I understand that you have too much work but to review and reject without relevant comments is a slap in the face without explanation. ~2026-43735-25 (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that saying fucking bastard asshole shit is much more "civil" that rejecting a work of a volunteering person who put many hours of work into it without reading it and/or providing actual review comments (as civil scientists do) on why it was rejected and how you guys think it can be improved.

I think it is way less civil in fact. ~2026-43622-87 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It most certainly is not, and I will also note that through this entire discussion the subject editor has been editing while logged out. I'm struggling to see why we shouldn't just indef and be done with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I %100 agree with you and support an indefinite block. Saying such a thing is extremely uncivil accordingly with our policies, while unfair rejections are distinct from civility and completely unrelated here. Jako96 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

No argument here. Ravenswing 20:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You could arguably say that it is worse than saying that, but accordingly with our policies and logically, obviously saying that thing is way more uncivil :) In fact, it is the only real "uncivil" thing here. Not reading or such is unrelated to civility, really. Also, do we have proof that people don't read those? Jako96 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, I've never interacted with you before. You said your quotes were being taken out of context. I highlighted one of your quotes and asked you to describe the context for that quote that would cause one to read that quote in a warmer light. Your response to this was hostile non-sequiturs, which lends further support to the OP's descriptions of your conduct. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I will second the initial comments by @Kovcszaln6 about the general behavior. I was involved in the originally declined/draftified of the article that Hargitaihi got upset about. Two editors at almost the same time created pages on the same person (Draft:Erzsébet Illés & Draft:Erzsébet Illés 2), so they needed to sort it out between themselves. It was not rejection, the person might meet notability, but the pages had problems that meant they were not ready. Unfortunately the response was aggressive, including a recent revision using AI which is certainly not appropriate.

I will also add that at about the same time there were some aggressive edits by an IP to Laurence D. Marks (which others reverted) which I now suspect may have come from the same person. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

N.B., Draft..2 was redirected to the other one a few days ago. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Who is Laurenc d marks? You want to accuse me of editing that page? Is this a contuniation of baseless accusations? Is this a typical wikipedia proxedure? Are you going to blaim me for Trump, wars, famine too? I have nothing to do with draft 2 and I have no intention on working on other peoples draft since I used all data I have in mine. your ai claim is, again, not backed by wiki policy: I repeat: copyeditong is explicitelt allowed. ~2026-43735-25 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Basic copyediting. You use words very differently in your obvious non-AI replies such as this one, so I'm quite sure, like most if not all of the readers here, that even if you didn't purely use AI, it was used extensively. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Ubased claims without evidence. Your rejection is based on assumptions. "I'm quite sure" is not considered argument in academic writing. You probably have heard of informal and formal writing differences. I never use words such as "you bastard" in academic papers, you are right. Is this your reason to ban me and reject my draft? Hargitaihi (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a scientific paper. Sad to say your answer here makes no sense. Oh, also, "probably" is also not considered an argument here, then. Jako96 (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not talking about using slang such as "you bastard." But let's just say that I don't believe that the person who writes your talk page edits could possibly churn out the material that is written in articles without a lot of mass massaging of the text. And really, LLM use isn't even the primary problem. What is a far bigger deal at this point is that you have a history of instant hostility and over-the-top rudeness, and your reaction to the slightest question or criticism is akin to what my seven-year-old nephew does when he's told to turn off Minecraft and get ready for bed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You are still editing while logged out here. I'll make it easier for you: your temporary account is now blocked. If you want to comment further here, you must do so using your account, @Hargitaihi:, and I would strongly suggest you not continue with the commentary as you have here so far. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

" I'll make it easier for you:" Is this kind of cynicism considered part of wikipedia editor civility? Hargitaihi (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean, he did kinda make it easy for you. Now we know it's actually you talking here, and you can help yourself through this discussion. Jako96 (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, this message can be a little rude, but because it is straight, which is alright. It should not be considered uncivil. He is correct about your behaviour. There is NO proof that people who rejects drafts don't read them (saying this if you really were that TA who said this). Please don't throw around proofless accusations. Jako96 (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

just for the records: this argumentation was started by you, not me. You editors spent so far much more time in emotional argumentation with me than what it would take to read and accept my contribution. Are you enjoying this? I have already done my volunteer work: sumbitted and reaubmitted for the 4th times the entry. Noone reads it instead you so called editors make a community effort of banging me into the ground. The resubmission is made your place is not here in the corner bar but in the workplace. Hargitaihi (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

And what a perfect way to bang yourself into the ground with WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Blocked indef as not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

:) Jako96 (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Dispute between WMF and its employees over Unionization is getting out of hand

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

---

As many of you know, there is an ongoing discussion between the WMF board and its employees over whether to recognize an employee union. I think admins may need to step in and warn some of the more pro-union employees who contribute at WP:VPR about advocacy and canvassing for their cause. Notifying editors that the discussions exist is one thing… calling for “solidarity” is another. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

(scratches his head) What rule do you think they're breaking? Certainly not WP:CANVASS, which pertains solely to discussions about articles, and policies/guidelines regarding the same. Ravenswing 20:17, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This again? Inappropriate for AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Yet somehow it is completely acceptable in your worldview to get people sanctioned for having different opinions from you. You will note that no one calling for “solidarity” has called for people who disagree with them to be warned by admins for that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Please specifically indicate the editors who you believe are being disruptive and include diffs supporting your assertions. Otherwise, this report has nothing actionable; "some people are being disruptive" is hopelessly vague. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The noticeboard instructions state that discussions here should "include diffs demonstrating the problem". Unless diffs are provided and the corresponding editors are notified, this discussion should be closed. — Newslinger talk 21:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Potentially disruptive WP:GENDERID violations

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

---

While patrolling recent changes, I saw that Floraracine changed the gender of a far right political figure who now identify as trans. Previously that edit was added by a TA and reverted on the grounds of WP:GENDERID. I tried politely warning Floraracine on their talk page to abide by the guideline of this user, but they are not responding in any way (via edit summaries or talk page messages) and I am really not in the mood for constantly reverting back and forth. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 01:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

They're still going at it. @Floraracine MOS:GENDERID is there whether you personally think the person is faking or not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

They are continuing with pronoun changes on a different BLP with Diff/1368441198 instead. Feels POINTY, considering Enes Kanter Freedom § Women's basketball. ‑‑gurkubondinn 02:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

 Indeffed clearly WP:NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Incivility and possible bias regarding the subject of my article

• Itamar Sade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Timtrent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I submitted Draft:Shoresh Institution for Socioeconomic Research twice for approval, during which I have disclosed that I am payed for my contributions and I aknowledged the critique of the first rejection during my second and revised submission, yet when my second submission got rejected the language which was used on my talk page was incivil and demeaning and focused more about the accusation of me being an amateur payed editior than the matter of fact of the article itself. As the subject regards an Israeli instition (And despite being a neutral and internationly recognized one), and the user's idiological affilation is evident, I have a strong notion that I am being treated with bias. Itamar Sade (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Timtrent's reply was a bit on the terse side, but was also absolutely correct: as a paid editor, you are expected to be able to navigate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as part of the task you are being paid for. You can't expect unpaid volunteers to spend much time assisting a paid editor get paid. By taking payment for this task, you assert to your employer that you have a professional level of ability to complete this task. In any case, the draft is a poor one; it says almost nothing about the institution itself and mainly advocates for the institution's positions.

I see no evidence you've tried to discuss issues with Timtrent. ANI is a last resort, not the first place one heads to when they're unhappy with an interaction with others. And escalating it with charges of anti-Israel bias is serious WP:ASPERSION casting; you either need to directly substantiate this with evidence that you are being treated this way because of bias or you need to withdraw this charge.

As noted in a big warning message when you created this section, it is absolutely required that you notify people of the discussion at ANI when you make accusations about them. Since you did not do that, I will go do this for you after I finish this message, unless someone else beat me to it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Itamar Sade I would suggest that you read WP:PAIDADVICE. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I stand by my record.

I also wish it noted that this attempt at generating a supposed bias held by me is offensive. The reporting editor needs to separate matters external to Wikipedia from matters on Wikipedia.

I would like to thank @CoffeeCrumbs for telling me of this report. Had they not told me I would not have seen it. Had I happened across it I would have ignored it without dignifying it with a reply. I have only responded as a courtesy to CoffeeCrumbs. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Itamar Sade You should also update the disclosure on your userpage so that it properly notes all the sources you have been paid by, and with a list of which articles you have created/edited in response for such payment. Athanelar (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment That comment looks perfectly valid as does the review rationale. On the surface, a paid editor who can't even spell, perhaps expecting the red carpet? Its contingent on any editor to ensure a good understanding of policy and guidelines before they begin any work. As far as I can see the article has no real coverage. It is extremely poor and shouldn't have been written. If it comes to article-space in that condition, it will be straight to WP:AFD. scope_creep^Talk 13:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Itamar Sade I think this is a wrong report. I have dealt with @Timtrent and it seems extremely unlikely to me that he would have bias. The article would be deleted if mived into draftspace and an unfounded accusation is not Assuming good faith. In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 00:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Dafootballguy If we are completely fair, every last one of us has biases. What is vital is for each of us to be aware of those we have and not allow them to interfere with the things we do, in real life or on Wikipedia. I do thank you for the very positive thought and I understand that you consider it unlikely that I would exhibit any bias. Indeed, it is something I am scrupulous about. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Chhay Mengheang problematic editing, not engaging in any discussion

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

Trying to engage with an editor who has a history of problematic editing. Finally decided to bring it up here after they blanked another one of my attempts to communicate on their talkpage and restored a draftified pageant contestant biography without any improvement.

As far as I can tell they don't use edit summaries since they started editing about a year ago, . They regularly blank their talkpage without engagement. In fact they blanked my request that they start using edit summaries, about one month ago.

I don't know if it necessarily impinges on this notice but I'll point out that this editor is active on a narrow range of articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

And the user in question tried to delete this section rather than responding to it. Canterbury Tail talk 15:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a "Please start talking to us" block may be in order. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it's time for an article-space block until they engage. Schazjmd (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I asked them to review several poor quality sources – including blogspot.com – that they added to a pageant article about the same time they attempted to remove this ANI report. Unfortunately, their response has been to blank their talkpage again, with no response to me even though I specifically asked them to acknowledge that they had seen the references checklist I made available for them. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Legal threat by TA

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

---

~2026-43784-06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Issued what looks like a legal threat in edit summary of this revision - "If you add the harassment again, a criminal complaint will be filed." IAmNetx (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm also thinking talk page needs revoked; they're selectively reading what we've been trying to explain to them. I don't foresee an unblock request, successful or otherwise, coming from them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yoinked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Mikewem and repeated attempts to remove a Commons file from We Are Charlie Kirk on copyright grounds

• Mikewem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• We Are Charlie Kirk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Mikewem has tried to remove File:We Are Charlie Kirk - SPALEXMA.wav, a file hosted on Commons, from We Are Charlie Kirk on multiple occasions. During a then-ongoing deletion discussion, the user attempted to prematurely remove the file from the article, citing that "Per the deletion discussion, we have no evidence that this is public domain," which was reverted after a Commons admin closed the deletion discussion as keep. After the song was updated on streaming platforms to be credited to a "Sargis Poghosyan," the user has since made multiple attempts to get the file removed off the article on copyright grounds. This includes the use of inappropriate templates to dispute the copyright status of the file ( ). Multiple editors have objected to Mikewem's editing as seen in the discussions as Talk:We Are Charlie Kirk and the reverting of their edits on the article. Seeing Mikewem's attempt to get the file removed today prompted me to revert the edit and leave a message on their talk page. However, by the time I had finished doing this, my edit had already been reverted, citing WP:NFCC3B, which I do not believe is a valid argument, because the file being hosted on Commons means it can be assumed to be free, and a disputing of its copyright status should be done on Commons. The user also made an uncivil comment accusing an editor of "a clear and obvious violation of WP:COPYVIO", which isn't clear and obvious if multiple editors aren't agreeing. Nilou simp (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has copyright policies. If you need to block me for taking these policies seriously and for placing an appropriate tag, then block me. I don’t expect to comment again here. Mikewem (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Consensus though has found your arguments that this is against Wikipedia's and Wikimedia Commons Copyright policies are weak for months now, yet you keep edit-warring. — Knightoftheswords 18:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Please supply evidence of edit-warring or strike this. Mikewem (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The repeated addition of tags, removal of content, etc. despite being reverted by multiple editors. — Knightoftheswords 18:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Diffs, or this starts to look like an WP:ASPERSION to me Mikewem (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

; is this not a clear example of edit-warring? The thing is there are actually a few folks on that talk page that are more ambivalent about the status of this work, including Nilou himself, but they've repeatedly told you to go to Commons to file a deletion request, something you're not doing. If you think this is contested, go there, but doing this on the article itself is disruptive. — Knightoftheswords 18:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Commons and English Wikipedia are separate, autonomous projects. And Commons is not a WP:RS.

I’m taking this list of diffs to be meant to convey that one removal of copyvio on the 10th of June and a second removal on the 27th of June constitutes WP:EW in your view? Mikewem (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Your intent with adding the copyright-related maintenance tags is pretty clear; even if they're not the same as directly removing the file from the article, it's obvious your edits have the same goal. Nilou simp (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess I’ll add that I would support giving a warning to OP for performing a tag removal with a justification outside of those provided at WP:WTRMT Mikewem (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

My justification is #3, "If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error." The template you added is for tagging an article as potentially containing copyright-violating links, not potentially copyright-violating files. Nilou simp (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It’s a link to the file. Is a link not a link now? Mikewem (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The template {{Copyvio links}} is for copyvio external links, which is what WP:LINKVIO is about. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

the file being hosted on Commons means it can be assumed to be free? That's not Wikipedia policy, regarding copyright or anything else. Projects are autonomous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, the file is in the public domain as it is AI-generated. Bedivere (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The copyright status of AI-generated material is far from certain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It is established in the US, where Wikipedia is hosted. What is the nationality of Spalexma and Sargis Poghosyan? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

In as much as US law is settled on this, it appears that only material entirely generated by AI might be considered copyright free. And we are in no position to make such a determination ourselves. Do we have sources directly stating that the music in question is copyright free? And what has the nationality of anyone got to do with this? Copyright isn't determined through citizenship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the copyright status of the file is a discussion for here. I'm more concerned about the disruptive editing that has arisen over the file's copyright status. Nilou simp (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

There is evidence it's based in Russia, and AI-generated material there has been ruled to be ineligible for copyright as recently as a few days ago. Per the Commons deletion discussion (which closed as keep citing these arguments), multiple RSes have described it as AI-generated (with Forbes even initially stating it was "apparently AI-generated" before changing it simply to "AI-generated". — Knightoftheswords 17:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

On Commons, it's been routinely agreed upon that pretty much all AI-generated material are, and even though projects are autonomous, Wikipedia's copyright policy is essentially the same as Commons, considering that its where most of WP's images are from. — Knightoftheswords 17:52, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

If Commons is making such assumptions, that's another good reason to retain our autonomy. The law is a heck of a lot more complex than that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It's been pretty widely legally established that wholly AI-works (which has been indicated of the work beforehand; check the description here) aren't eligible for copyright since copyright requires human authorship; this is the same principle that informed the monkey selfie copyright dispute. You even hinted as such, and the US copyright office has repeatedly reiterated as such. — Knightoftheswords 18:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

So, what is your source for this being wholly AI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

From the link above:

Disclaimer:
This album is a creative project by ViVO Tunes artist SPALEXMA.
All 11 songs were created as AI-generated tributes in memory of Charlie Kirk.
These works are fan-made, inspirational, and for artistic remembrance only.

Again, several RSes describe it as such as well. — Knightoftheswords 18:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Please supply a RS that shows that Vivo tunes is a legal representative of Spalexma and/or Sargis Poghosyan.

The most recent RS to cover it describes it as “the apparent AI-slop song We Are Charlie Kirk”. Mikewem (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The YouTube link says that it is 'Made with AI... altered or fully generated' which isn't a statement that it is necessarily 'wholly AI', it is a statement that AI was used in the process. AS for RS, do you have sources explicitly discussing copyright status? Or even sources stating that it was entirely AI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The YT AI notice is just a generic, all-encompassing one covering any AI work, wholly or otherwise; the video-specific descriptor is the one I linked, which states that the entire album was AI-generated. Some sources that state that its entirely AI include Politico (the song “We Are Charlie Kirk,” which was entirely AI-generated), The New Yorker (There’s even a theme song: “We Are Charlie Kirk,” an A.I.-generated gospel-trap hymn that topped Spotify’s viral chart after being ruthlessly parodied across TikTok and Instagram), Rolling Stone (Then, of course, there was the AI-generated song “We Are Charlie Kirk” by the nonexistent band Spalexma, an anthem so utterly inane yet bombastic in its worship of the deceased podcaster that it was destined to soundtrack thousands of TikToks that weaponized it for highlight reels of Kirkified pictures.), among others. — Knightoftheswords 18:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

An easy way to solve this problem would be to merge this article (which is frankly a blizzard of words about a crappy meme song) back to Charlie Kirk where it belongs. Encyclopedic it is not. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. And even if the article is actually worth having, there is absolutely no necessity to link to a file of questionable copyright status. We manage well enough without such links in the vast majority of our articles on music. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

In the US it is not questionable, it is firmly in the public domain. You can inform yourself on the matter by visiting the US copyright office's website. Simple as that. Have a good day Bedivere (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not as easy as that. There's still a lot of ambiguity here; the US Copyright Office administers the law and frequently interprets the law and makes recommendations, and is certainly influential, but in the end, the courts have not waded through all of the related issues yet. This is even more the case after Loper Bright. While I think that it'll probably end up being the case that fully AI-generated works will not be protected by copyright law, basically going "BOOM, NO QUESTION!" is unjustified at this point. Nor does that directly affect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which are frequently more stringent than what is allowed under copyright law. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

In the meantime, the correct location to dispute the copyright status of a file hosted on Commons is at Commons, and Mikewem's behavior on the article in question is certainly disruptive. I would support a partial block for repeated edit warring and disruptive tagging. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Well considering this has been a for several months now, I don't think such an effort would succeed. — Knightoftheswords 18:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Being a Good Article is not a shield against merging if the subject is deemed inappropriate for a standalone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No, but it implies a level of scrutiny and exposure to other editors that means that any AFD effort would likely fail without an exceptional opposition team. — Knightoftheswords 02:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If it's a copyright violation, make that case on Commons, where the file is hosted and where we concentrate a wide range of media-specific copyright expertise. ANI is not where we settle the copyright of Commons-hosted files. Edit warring is not a substitute. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

except that if it is non free, it falls under NFC policy which is one of the 3RRNO exemptions to remove such media that do not meet NFCC requirements. And the arguments that it is not clear if this was 100% created by AI by prompts, or mixed/edited by human after generation (which can make it eligible for copyright) us a very fair question to be asking on en.wiki, particularly as the source maje not positive identification of a free license. Masem (t) 18:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Per 3RRNO, "What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first." Given the discussion in this thread, I think it is clear that this is a controversial case, and it cannot be simply brushed off as a case of 3RRNO. Once again, ANI is not the venue to discuss this issue, and any willing editor should open a deletion discussion at Commons. Nilou simp (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, it looks to me like the copyright question has been settled. If anyone wants to start a deletion or merge discussion, they can do that. If there's any further disruptive editing, we can address that when it happens with blocks as necessary. Is there anything else? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I opened this thread primarily due to concerns about Mikewem's editing. There is agreement that Mikewem's repeated attempts to remove the file from the article constitutes edit warring, which seems like a recurring issue per Mikewem's talk page. I also have concerns about Mikewem's civility due to comments from this very thread, including accusing me of making an unjustified removal of a maintenance template, and demanding an editor to provide evidence of edit warring when the evidence is contained at the very start of this thread. Nilou simp (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, what led you to conclude that the copyright question has been settled? Mikewem (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Because:

1. I said so. This is the administrators' noticeboard, and I made a judgment call as an administrator on an administrative matter. If someone doesn't, the stupid debate will go on forever.
2. the arguments that it's a copyright violation are quite weak. They boil down to "I have a feeling in my gut" vs the facts posted by the side that said it's not a copyright violation.
3. there are proper channels to raise your concerns if you have better arguments than the ones you posted here. Nominate the file for deletion if you think it's a copyright violation.
4. Wikipedia has processes to remove content that's policy-compliant but someone thinks doesn't belong in the article. See dispute resolution.

This is quite literally a gift to you. I am not taking something away from you. I am giving you the freedom to move on with your life and argue over something more meaningful. If someone were to block you for edit warring, that would be taking something away from you – but hopefully it won't come to that. And to the other side: I suggest you guys try to let things go, too. Make we could try that for once, and nobody gets blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive edits within many templates (primarily regarding categories)

LoganDocMan2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor continues with highly disruptive edits among templates, as noted by the title of this topic, primarily regarding adding categories to templates. For example, I've just had to revert the user's edits on Template:Nick at Nite and Template:Nick Jr. as the category 'Nickelodeon navigational boxes' had been listing show articles that are very clearly not templates/navigational boxes. Given the amount of template edits this user has done, it seems like the issue(s) are likely more than just that one simple category.

Also noting that the user had a talk page filled with dozens of warnings, including User talk:LoganDocMan2000#Template links in navboxes, User talk:LoganDocMan2000#Templates, and User talk:LoganDocMan2000#Stop editing template categories, which seem to be relevant to this ongoing issue. The user has also apologized in response to many of their warnings/others' comments, but seems to still be continuing anyways, so may possibly be a WP:NOTHERE case at this point as well. Either way, potentially lots of cleanup needed regarding their recent edits. Magitroopa (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

To add to the list of warnings, see also section Template categorization and colon trick. LoganDocMan2000 has been warned and given detailed instructions about edits like Special:Diff/1368413270 and Special:Diff/1337479287/1368413878 several months ago. They were warned about edits to article categories as well at section "Category:Lists of rock music groups".

Some stats: they've made 855 edits in the Category namespace, out of which 190 got reverted (~22%), and though that includes self-reverts (there are a few of these in all namespaces (not a precise list)), it doesn't cover the edits that got partially reverted. The stats for Template namespace are 1336 edits, out of which 328 were reverted (~24%).

It feels like less of a WP:NOTHERE and more of a WP:CIR issue. As an example, LoganDocMan2000 has been editing template categories for months with several warnings about it along the way, and asked today What is even the stinking difference between a navigational box and a template I mean come on man stop me calling me out so many times already please.

I haven't interacted with LoganDocMan2000's article namespace edits, but there are many warnings about them on their talk page as well: October 2025, Re: Lists of multimedia franchises, November 2025, November 2025 2, December 2025, User talk:LoganDocMan2000#List of power trios, Classical hip hop in subgenres.

LoganDocMan2000 seems to have created many articles, many of which got draftified and deleted, and some were speedily deleted. See all user talk sections from Atmospheric doom moved to draftspace till Atmospheric doom moved to draftspace 2; a second big part from Speedy deletion nomination of Lists of classical composers till I have sent you a note about a page you started 11; with many other sections after that. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Re: It feels like less of a WP:NOTHERE and more of a WP:CIR issue. Yeah, WP:NOTHERE might be stronger in this case: Special:Diff/1368758247, quote: I'm sorry folks I was just fooling around with adding and subtracting content here and there please don't terminate my Wikipedia account I will stop terrorizing your website I won't do it again I promise just please give me one more chance here please. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I've also run into similar problems with LoganDocMan (there's also a sockpuppet account at LoganDocManBoy2000, by the way, although it seems to have been used only very briefly last fall, corresponding to a 31-hour temporary editblock, and hasn't been used since, but it will need to be noted if this escalates to a full editblock). In fact, I had included him as a second user issue in a different discussion I initiated below, although I was subsequently alerted to the prior existence of this discussion and removed him from the other one accordingly.
I also ran into several instances today of templates where he had added a template category outside of noinclude tags, causing it to transclude that template category onto dozens and dozens of articles and draft or sandbox pages that don't belong in template categories — and I've run into the same problem with him before, as well, only to have my talk page advisories to him greeted with a dismissal in the realm of "okay whatever" with no actual effort to modify his behaviour accordingly, and other users who've addressed the same issue have been similarly dismissed with nonsense like "what am I supposed to do about it?" (Gee, I dunno, pay attention to what you're doing, maybe?)
They're just not being a productive or helpful editor at all, that's clear. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced edits by TA

• ~2026-43731-66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Continued unsourced editing after final warning. All 4 levels of warns were given on various other TAs associated with this user.

- In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It's definitely not great that this editor is edit-warring, especially if they're not communicating at all.

You've only presented one account in this report, and from what I can see, their edit is on a mole species. I know nothing about biology, but I can see that they're changing "critically endangered, possibly extinct" to just "critically endangered" in the infobox (and also did so recently with their previous TA), which you're reverting. The citation in the infobox for this status is from 2015, but the article's lead has a sourced claim that scientists found evidence of the species still being alive in 2023. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding the situation here, but it looks like "possibly extinct" is an outdated status and that the TA's edit might be motivated by the 2023 source, although it would obviously be better if they put the 2023 source in the infobox or explained themselves in their edit summaries. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Here's the list of other TAs that are easily found from the current TA's contributions link:

~2026-43731-66

~2026-43283-96

~2026-42826-07

~2026-42009-74

~2026-26948-75

The IUCN status in the taxobox is sourced to the IUCN ref, unsurprisingly. Click on the ref and scroll to the classification, and you can see that the IUCN has not yet upgraded this to just "CR"; it is still "possibly extinct". They've likewise changed other taxobox statuses on other TA accounts. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The IUCN status in the taxobox is sourced to the IUCN ref, unsurprisingly.

That's fair. As I said, I know nothing about zoology (that's the word I was looking for, not "biology"), and I can see from glancing at your edit history that you're a regular editor in zoology articles, so you're way more qualified than me on if the edit was actually reasonable or not. I just wanted to present what seemed like a mild defence of the edit, since it seemed potentially defensible to me. I'm sorry if I made you feel like someone without adequate knowledge immediately jumped in and muddied the waters with your report - I know how that can feel in online discussions, and that wasn't my intention. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It was also harsher than you knew because I'd been reporting such incidents on AIV and they had been often supported there, but was just essentially trouted for doing that and told to come here... I'm not having a great day. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Rude editor in autism articles

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

---

.

With this latest descent into profanity, I'm giving up on the idea that User:Confirmatores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is capable of being a net positive contributor to Wikipedia at this point in time.

The account is barely more than two months old, and we've spent about half that time asking them to consider whether other people's viewpoints might be valid or to provide sources to back up their factual assertions. The most we get is waving vaguely at large sources (example) that, upon inspection, do not support the claims, or could do so only via WP:SYNTH; other times, we get outright refusals to engage with Wikipedia's need for verifiability in medical articles (e.g., "I will NOT spoonfeed the relevant bits to you").

Instead of providing reliable sources, they declare that editors who disagree with them must be unauthorized bots, trolls, POV pushers, etc. (example, example, example, example). They are insulting to other editors ("Please, develop reading comprehension before replying", "vomiting your ideological crap all over the place, forcing readers to read a deliberately falsified account "), and even make threats to report people who disagree with them (example) and claim that they have made such reports and "officially required publication of the relevant IP adress of the user "WhatamIdoing"" (example), though none are visible in their contributions (and of course we don't hand out other editors' IP addresses, so if such a demand were made, it'd be rejected per the terms of use).

I think that a WP:TBAN from all autism-related or neurodevelopmental-related content might be sufficient, but a WP:BLOCK might be simpler. At a glance, more than 80% of their edits appear to be related to autism and similar neurodevelopmental content. It should IMO be of significant length. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think a TBAN is going to be sufficient here. Before actually deciding one way or another, though, I'd like to hear their side. Hopefully it directly addresses their manifestly inappropriate editing. I could... possibly... be convinced that a TBAN might be sufficient, in that case. --Yamla (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This, while absolutely not a legal threat, is absolutely intended to cause a chilling effect and also is de facto a threat of outing. @Confirmatores:, you must retract this statement immediately or be sanctioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

1. Even if I was able to get the IP adress, this does, in no way, allow me or anyone else to actually identify the person or where he or she lives so this does not constitute a legal threat. Ignoring here that, even if I was to be able to locate his position, none of what I said so far constitutes a legal threat as I did not incite violence. Bringing up any claim that I engaged or was about to engage in legal threats is unwarranted speculation and insinuation and may constitute a defamation offense.

2. The problem as it relates to the user "WhatamIdoing" is down to his refusal to engage with opposing views, instead baiting parties into feeding it sources even when the user is the relevant party making the claims. Proper redirection to the relevant sources is ignored, instead, one is asked to cite specific passages which can be interpreted as engagement-baiting. As I have already cited from sources in regards to disputes with him or her in previous disputes, the user will usually ignore the arguments, declare the sources one-sided and instead cite other sources, regardless of whether or not they're WP:Reliable_sources etc. He also hides behind concerns around vague "minority" groups which he or she is happy to point out are rules rather than recommendations made by Wikipedia.

3. There's good reason to assume that the user wishes to ban me from the articles not out of any malice from my side but simply because I have repeatedly called him out on a number of unwarranted statement in regards to the relevant topic which it failed to provide relevant sources or provided sources but chose to forego opposing views. Confirmatores (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Threats do not require violence to be threats. You were demanding that the administrator provide you with confidential data, and using that threat as leverage to get changes you want to see. If you have claims about another editor's actions, provide diffs or retract the accusations, and save the third-rate wikilawyering. If this is how you plan to conduct yourself here, this is extremely concerning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If 3 were true, the reported user’s own volition and malice in reacting uncivilly has made their job easier. Borgenland (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The admins and editors on this noticeboard have a lot of sympathy for their fellow autists. BashoTanka (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE for this and racist comments in another thread. Borgenland (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have followed their autism-related edits over the last couple months and they have been almost exclusively a disruptive time sink, pushing very hard on rather unusual viewpoints. Every conversation just rapidly devolves. If their behaviour was just that, I could understand a TBAN. But continued personal attacks despite warnings, and that implied threat about IP addresses... surely a block is required? Endwise (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

We can do both a TBAN and an indef. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Indef by Single Admin

I haven't read the underlying content dispute. I have seen the threat, and I have seen the call by The Bushranger to retract the threat, and I see that they continued their hostility after being told to retract the threat. It is time for one uninvolved admin to indefinitely block Confirmatores to save the community the effort of a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

They were told "retract this statement or face sanctions". They not only refused to retract their statement but acted as if they were being accussed of a legal threat when it was explicitly said it was not, and, functionally, doubled down. Thus, the sanctions: they've been indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

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

~2026-39721-44 and CIR/possible trolling, constant pings, and misleading edit summaries

~2026-39721-44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - ~2026-39721-44 keeps linking my userpage in edit summaries and saying that their edits are "for" me, this has been occurring since June (see related TAs) - as their oldest edits (on a previous TA, diffs not linked due to TAIV guidelines) are making an edit with a misleading edit summary, reverting themselves and saying it was a misleading edit summary, then making edits with misleading edit summaries indicating IAbot use, this feels like trolling, and if not, a WP:CIR issue.

~2026-39721-44 has pinged me in 50 out of 72 of their edits, with more on previous TAs. ~2026-39721-44 has also made many edits with the misleading edit summary "Fixed typo" when adding unsourced content (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4).

I will say that I only explicitly asked them to stop pinging me on August 8th after they sent 12 pings in one day (diff) - as I had a feeling this was trolling, I didn't ask them to stop yet as my concern was that acknowledging it in this way would encourage it. After I explicitly asked them to stop, they responded to this/my concerns with their misleading edit summaries saying "Ok thanks. Just for proofs." (diff) - I do not know what this means. After this, they pinged me two more times (diff, diff), I asked them to stop again today (diff), they responded saying "Ok. Thanks, Waxworker. Let's not continue doing it at all." (diff), then pinged me again two times today (diff, diff), in an edit where they cited a WP:FANDOM wiki despite them saying earlier on my talk page when they were asking me to upload images that "Better, while Fandom is an unreliable WP:USERGENERATED source for cite templates, it is still a reliable source for file sources" (diff, diff, two diffs as they edited the message).

I previously notified ~2026-39721-44 in July of issues with them using WP:USERGENERATED sources, (diff), with ~2026-39721-44 saying that they understand (diff), and I have previously also notified them of issues with user-generated sourcing multiple times on previous TAs, the earliest being in June. I feel that ~2026-39721-44 is WP:NOTHERE. Waxworker (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

That looks irritating.

Waxworker, you (and others watching this page) may be interested in looking at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo-blocknotificationslist, where you can unilaterally block an individual editor from pinging you. Just put their name in the box. It's supposed to work on TAs exactly like it works on registered editors. (As the TA's account will change or expire in about two months, you can pull it out later.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is certainly trolling. --bonadea contributions talk 17:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Mass poor-quality edits by MR KINGMAKER

MR KINGMAKER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Almost all this user's edits are regressions, and they should be mass-reverted. Today they are replacing descriptions, for example the description for Luzuko Matiwane, the king of the AmaMpondomise, previously "King of AmaMpondomise", now reads "Ama-Mpondomise-Kingdom", which is nonsense for a person. Greenman (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a mess. MR KINGMAKER has made this nonsensical change of the description, labeling various kings as kingdoms (maybe they should rename to MR KINGERASER). And before that, inundating several article with boldfaced words with all the elegance of a beach ball filled with mayonnaise dropped off the Empire State building. It seemed like they were agreeing to stop doing this (at least in vague fashion), but followed up with this:

yo Greenman who are you to tell me I'm speaking nonsense for naming the kingdom of Ama-Mpondomise people of South Africa & do you think they would appreciate you for how you use your bad language to others hmmm just asking.

I think a block to encourage participation here is a must until they do so. I do think an article space block may be necessary too -- very few of their edits are even arguably productive -- but it's only fair to see if they're willing to come work this out before such a restriction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I think he might be a troll.

who knows? i don't know anything! (clearly irony, as he's either a troll or illiterate) Tankishguy 00:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I honestly don't think we're talking about a troll. I suspect that this is an editor who wants to better highlight an underdocumented part of history, doesn't communicate well in English, and has a very poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. This may need to be a WP:CIR block, but my ability to assume their good faith has not been sufficiently shattered yet. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Utterly uncivil account

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

---

BashoTanka (talk · contribs) had been pushing WP:UNCIVIL messages regarding other users’ comprehension throughout their stay here, even going as far as WP:LOUTSOCK when they editwarred to reinsert outdated information on 2026 Kumamoto earthquake, see , and in other articles . They have been warned multiple times, but this sums up their WP:NOTHERE attitude . Borgenland (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The information on 2026 Kumamoto earthquake is not "outdated". Borgenland just doesn't personally understand the information.

Borgenland falsely thought the total was being referred to - it wasn't - Borgenland didn't read it properly.

Borgenland did not properly read the article - or properly read the reference supporting the passage - when they reverted the edits by Celjski Grad.

None of that information is outdated and is still correct.

I was logged in when I reinserted the correct information, but the cache was cleared so I ended up logged out in between editing and publishing.

Only someone acting in bad faith would not understand that can happen.

Obviously, the note detailing the persistent removal of correct information by Borgenland, was under the assumption that I was still logged in. BashoTanka (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Civility isn't optional on Wikipedia, no matter the legitimacy of any disagreements. And whether Borgenland is right or wrong, they clearly are vandalising, which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Accusing them of vandalising when they aren't is a personal attack and will lead to you being blocked. I suggest you withdraw the claim. Nil Einne (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking more, both of you need to need more civility, remember responding to incivility with incivility doesn't help. And I'd note that despite the WP:Edit war neither of you seems to have touched the talk page with this which is never a good look when a WP:content dispute comes to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relevant source on 2026 Kumamoto Earthquake that details deaths due to a blast.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260728193806/https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/73b3ec550ced4d738723db87b4cfe2373b0304f3

But Borgenland is persistently removing the correct information, removing any and all mention of deaths due to the blast.

Borgenland did not go to the talk page of 2026 Kumamoto Earthquake yet still persisted in removing correct information.

If that is not considered vandalism by the relative standards on here I withdraw my claim. BashoTanka (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not vandalism since Borgenland seems to have been acting in good faith and genuinely confused by your edits rather than intending to harm Wikipedia. That's why you should use the talk page to explain your edits rather than just edit summaries when there's clearly confusion. It would also help a great deal if you were civil. People tend to miss whatever possibly legitimate point you may have when you surround that point with extreme rudeness. And so since wikipedia is a collaborative project, your eventual block aside, if you want to succeed here you need to change how you approach disputes because you're failing to convey your message successfully with your extreme rudeness to virtually any dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Borgenland was acting in bad faith and very uncivil.

Check some of the notes on the edit summary he left on 2026 Kumamoto earthquake for proof.

Borgenland claimed to understand that there were deaths in the blast but persisted in repeatedly removing correct information because they had a personal issue. Instead they edit warred and only left the remark on injuries.

What can that be considered as? Intentionally removing correct information repeatedly? BashoTanka (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Someone acting in good faith won't revert edits they know are correct, removing any mention of deaths in the blast but keeping the injuries.

The manual revert on my edit, after someone else had already changed my contribution, reveals they were acting in bad faith the entire time.

Additionally, the note they left on their edit admitted to it. BashoTanka (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not the one editor acting here in bad faith by restoring outdated and contradictory information by 2 days under false pretenses of vandalism , casting aspersions to others editors’ education and reading capability in other articles , systemically referring to multiple editors‘ warnings as trash [ and doubling down by removing them on related and false allusions of cleanup , not to mention WP:LOUTSOCKING and acting offended when they become victim to their own brand of blunt messaging. Borgenland (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no evidence Borgenland believed that your edits complied with our policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. All the edit summaries show they were uncertain about the sourcing and the number of deaths. You continuing to claim this, while being grossly uncivil with virtually everyone you've interacted with for which you've offered no commitment to change, makes me think you're fundamentally unsuited for wikipedia. I suggest you contemplate your next reply carefully since I don't see much point discussing this further if you're going to continue to ignore the highly problematic nature of your edits as well as make personal attacks. Instead, we should move on to the indefinite block or indefinite community site ban stage. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

" There is no evidence Borgenland believed the information was correct "

No, that is also wrong.

In the edit summary, Borgenland acknowledged that there were deaths and the sources used, but still removed the correct information. Nothing about it "didn't comply" or not.

It is clear from Borgenland's own words in their edit summary that they acknowledged there were deaths, but still repeatedly removed the correct information anyway.

Also, these changes were done by manual revert after someone had already edited these lines, which indicates bad faith editing.

Those are facts, even if you want to desperately ignore them. BashoTanka (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Those are facts, even if you want to desperately ignore them. I recommend you read Law of holes before posting again. Celjski Grad (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S. The last edit summary brought up LOUTSOCKING without clearly specifying another reason. I don't personally believe this is a good reason to revert an edit when the editor involved isn't otherwise blocked, banned or forbidden from making the edit. But making such a reversal also isn't acting in bad faith. That said, if you accidentally edit logged out and an edit seems to have been reverted solely for this reason, the simple solution was to remake the edit while logged in without being uncivil. But of course since you'd both been edit warring so much, the best solution was to just take it to the talk page and calmly and civilly discuss it there regardless. Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

As far as I’m concerned, I’ve had run-ins several times with editors who try to avoid 3RR by LOUTSOCK, and as for the manual revert, I sometimes find it more important to avoid wrecking edits made in the interim as a precaution and to prove that reverts like this were painstakingly made, and given the chronic incivility on their part, which they have demonstrated throughout this thread, their talk page and in their edit summaries, and lastly to Nil Einne when you tried to mediate in this thread, I do not find it conducive to extend further WP:ROPE to someone who is plainly WP:NOTHERE but continues to evade scrutiny. No editor should be allowed to be subjected to such baseless behavior and expect to put up with it. Borgenland (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It had not come near 3RR for LOUTSOCK to avoid it.

Your second claim is dishonest. The only edit in the interim had been from the editor who changed the passage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Kumamoto_earthquake&diff=1368099970&oldid=1368053969

In fact, there were no other "edits made in the interim" nor was this "painstakingly made", it was an obvious bad-faith manual revert by you, with the one interim edit being something you did "wreck". BashoTanka (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You mean Celjski Grad reverting possibly outdated information [ and calling you out for failing to adhere to WP:CITE right after you cast a personal attack against them Borgenland (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

More dishonesty from Borgenland. You are the one reverting the edit by Celjski Grad in this revision and removing the correct information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Kumamoto_earthquake&diff=1368099970&oldid=1368053969

Does this individual not know what words means?

The poor grasp of English from obviously third world ESL users like Borgenland does make me think there's an element of lost in translation in play. BashoTanka (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Unproductive incivility

How xenophobic of you to exhaust WP:ROPE in front of everybody and embracing your diffs. Borgenland (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

But is it wrong? Are you or are you not a 160 cm ESL from a third world Southeast Asian nation? With a poor grasp on English and thus failing to understand what is clearly written. BashoTanka (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

My record speaks for itself, yours is just racist WP:NOTHERE digging its own way to a block. Borgenland (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Your record speaks for itself as an obvious ESL who very frequently makes glaring mistakes a native speaker would never.

With your lack of understanding of English and complete lack of reading comprehension, you should edit the Wikipedia for Cebuano or Tagalog or whatever language you can speak at a native-level.

You might actually be semi-useful if you did that. BashoTanka (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this is clearly WP:INDEF territory. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

And now all-out WP:CBAN territory on a separate thread in case they slip through: . Borgenland (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked BashoTanka for 24 hours due to personal attacks. If the community comes to a consensus to impose different sanctions in that time, this can be done without consulting me. CMD (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked Racism, ableism and generally being obnoxious = not here to collaborate. Black Kite (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

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

User:DynamoMachineGun doesn't seem to respect references

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

@DynamoMachineGun have been warned multiple times by me to change the "current squad" sections in club articles in accordance to the club websites. Sure, some teams take some time to update their lists, but we should never "assume" which players are first team members and which aren't. They have been also warned by @KibolLP and @Eggman02, but they don't seem to engage in any simple conversation.

A clear example of this breach of behaviour can be seen at Coritiba Foot Ball Club, where they removed a player from the first team squad (Alejandro Ararat) when the club's official website clearly lists him as a first team member. Another batch of wrong edits also occurred at Associação Atlética Ponte Preta, where they deliberately added false information (having a 26-year-old player - Heberth - in the "youth team" section and listing a player who have never even appeared for the club in that season - Dudu Scheit - with an incorrect number). As the user does not want to engage in a conversation or even simply explain their edits, I've started this thread. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Some other edits also occurred in the past (which mainly included adding false or invented numbers to players), but this does seem to have stopped so far. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Syavia2023 consistently making unsourced changes

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

---

Syavia2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked once before by @DMacks, yet even after their block expired they continued with the same behavior. This person clearly disregards the many warnings they have received, even responding to a warning about creating an unsourced edit with "i'm sorry", proving they saw it, then doing it again the next day.

• Special:Diff/1368265017
• Special:Diff/1361805258
• Special:Diff/1367094009

pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I've indeffed, the block log will state addition of unsourced content. Note on talk page will also indicate my concerns that we are being trolled. The outcome is the same. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Incivility and hostile comments by User:R Prazeres

R Prazeres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am asking for help from administrators because another user, R Prazeres, is bullying me about my English skills. I have been trying to add good historical facts with real sources to the Round City of Baghdad page, but instead of discussing the history, this user keeps making mean personal comments about how I speak and understand English.

Last week on my talk page, he wrote to me: "Again, your responses indicate that you do not really understand a lot of the comments from myself and other editors... evidently there is a communication or comprehension problem here." Then today, he treated me even worse on my talk page and wrote: "I already explained that here! Are you not able to read? This goes back to my point above about language barriers."

Asking a person "Are you not able to read?" and insulting their language skills just to shut them down is completely unfair and against the rules of this website. It makes the site a really hostile and unwelcoming place for people from different backgrounds who just want to help share history.

and he also keeps reverting the edits that I spend hours to make, I understand that my edits might have mistakes and I understand that he has his reasons to remove them, but he does it to every single small edit and if there is a mistake it would be better if he told me to correct it or he corrects it instead of removing it completely, this is frustrating it’s like he has a edit war with me and I even got a bit of eye damaged for starting on the scene for hours to share history for the people who want to learn it , and all of it goes to waste.

Please ask this user to stop attacking my English skills and force him to talk about the actual history instead, Thank you. YousifMustafa881 (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You are required to notify a user when you bring them to this board, as per the notice in the yellow box on the edit page. I have done this for you now. Morwen (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

My last comment () was less civil in tone than usual and I apologize for that. However, this comes on the heels of repeated attempts by both myself and other editors to explain to them what they're doing wrong and to advise them with other ways to proceed, with seemingly little progress. My remarks about a possible language/communication barrier are completely serious:

• They have openly admitted that English might be a barrier (). I don't reproach them that (multilingualism is usually an asset), but it is a factor I'm considering when trying to parse all the other problems they keep running into.
• They were using LLMs at least until recently (e.g. see their talk page history, and I have asked them about it again today). And they apparently continue to use machine translation for their edits and comments (e.g. , ).
• Their edits often involve poor comprehension of the article they're editing or inaccurate reading of the sources they cite (as I've explained to them: ). They're of course free to dispute that and other editors' objections on article talk pages if they like, as I've also recommended to them multiple times (, , ), but that is what I'm seeing.
• And generally speaking, their talk page responses are often evasive, confused, don't substantively or fully answer the points raised by others, or simply request an explanation of why they were reverted without acknowledging that the other editors did actually explain that already. Lots of examples of the latter, but their latest response in particular () is what I reacted to, as I had given specific reasons for reverting them at that particular article (, ; and as I said there I'm happy to further clarify on the talk page).

All of that together suggests to me that either that either their level of English reading/writing is an obstacle, or they have some other comprehension/communication problem standing in the way of understanding content and editor feedback. This ANI report is the first time that they have responded at all to that aspect of my comments. The fact that, after spending this much time trying to advise them, the only conclusion they've reached is "R Prazeres is bullying me" is disappointing and not reassuring.

From my perspective, the sum of all this points to a WP:COMPETENCE problem. I suspect there are other editors who might be willing to weigh in on that, but I'll refrain from pinging anyone unless an admin actually wants to pursue this. R Prazeres (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

When you reverted my edit you specifically wrote “ use the talk page if you need further clarification.” And what I did was ask for further clarification, what deeply hurted me is that you started to mocking my English by saying “are you able to read!” Especially since I come from a background which doesn’t have English as a native language, yet I try my best. YousifMustafa881 (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I was not mocking your English: the point of my comment was that your response suggests that either you did not read my explanations, that you are not making a real effort to understand them, or that you are not able to understand them correctly. It was a rude way of making that point, but it happened because your responses to editor feedback have been equally frustrating and discouraging. R Prazeres (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I want to be completely honest here. I am still really new to how Wikipedia works behind the scenes. English isnt my native tongue, and honestly, trying to figure out all these formatting and citation rules is completely messy to me but that’s no excuse, I should be figuring them out. When I saw hours of my hard work and searching just deleted over and over again, I got really upset. I shouldn't have kept putting the text back on the Baghdad page, and I'm truly sorry for doing that. History isn't just a hobby for me it’s my absolute passion. I care so much about making sure Syrian and Mesopotamian history is told right. I really don't want to stop editing or leave this site. I hear what you and the others are saying about the mistakes I'm making, and I know I have a lot to learn.From now on, I am going to slow way down. I’ll just focus on one single article at a time. I will post my ideas on the Talk Pages first so people can help me fix my grammar and formatting before anything goes live. I just want to learn how to do this right and be a part of the team. Thank you for your patience with me YousifMustafa881 (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Behaviour of Avgeek737

This user Avgeek737 falsely accused me of vandalism on my talk page and widely attacked all of my edits for no valid reason on 2 women's football pages (Zambia women's national football team and Malawi women's national football team). They believe that I harm pages while I updated it and only remove fixtures older than August 2025 (12 months, the rule on national football teams' pages and threaten me of blocking. Can you book them please ? Thank you. ~2026-44099-73 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Where does it say fixtures older than a year should be removed from Wikipedia? Avgeek737 (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Avgeek737: See here the wiki project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams, the sentence is very clear and explicit : "The following is a list of match results in the last 12 months, as well as any future matches that have been scheduled." So at least, you can recongize that you were excessive and autorevert you. Furthermore, you cannot qualify this as a vandalism.

Well it doesn’t say that anything older than 12 months should be removed, so you didn’t prove anything. Nowhere on wikipedia does it say that fixtures older than 12 months should just be removed from the entire page. Also, you weren’t vandalizing, you were removing content from these pages without saying anything in the edit summary explaining why. Avgeek737 (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

And about that last revert, there was already a "2026 in association football" tag, so you created a duplicate by changing the 2025 to 2026 as well Avgeek737 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The following is a list of match results in the last 12 months, as well as any future matches that have been scheduled. is definitely read as "a list, comprised from the results from the last 12 months", unless you would mean that it could include any other past results, despite the wording there. If you would, it's on you to show then. ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikiprojects don't get to decide what can and cannot go on a Wikipedia article page. They can't put restrictions on them, they're just someone's suggestions and are not enforcable. Canterbury Tail talk 16:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It's another story. I'm about reading of the phrase there only. Even assuming that those Wikiprojects proposals are irrelevant as you're saying, "Well it doesn’t say that anything older than 12 months should be removed, so you didn’t prove anything." would still be wrong, as it would be irrelevant at all if they're saying so or not, and it posed as if it is relevant (in that case it would be simply wrong).

Do I understand you right, and it also means that OP could remove them at their will, because willing to keeping them would be just someone's suggestions and are not enforcable, or it's more complicated? ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

(a) the page itself says it is a "proposal for the general style and contents of an article on a national football team.", so it's not even pretending to be binding

(b) this is in any case sample text not a rule. Sample text is formatted normally, with glosses and explanations of best practice in italics (or in one case, an explicitly marked Note). Morwen (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If following those proposals is constituing "to harm Wikipedia", those proposals should be removed and discouraged. If proposals are fine on their own instead, they could be followed then (or not followed, but it would be against of consensus of those, who are following them, then (here recently was something discussed in that line)). ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Long-Term Disruption, Historical Timeline Manipulation, and Noticeboard Abuses by User Ananya Taye

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

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would like to bring to your notice a very disturbing trend that exists in the editing behavior of User:Ananya Taye. This editor is being extremely disruptive and manipulating the historical timeline on articles pertaining to the history of Assam, particularly the Xorai, Jaapi ,Ahom artillery article page.

1. Summary of Behavioral Patterns and Violations

• Content Deletion and Hostile Page Ownership (WP:OWN / WP:DE): After conducting a routine source check on this user where I included peer-reviewed linguistic map information from Li Fang-Kuei and original chronicle sources from the 'Satsari Asam Buranji', the individual engaged in a major and hostile revert, deleting 17,739 bytes of original source-based academic research and historic text calculations from the main namespace all in one go.

• Calendrical Falsification and Misleading Stories (WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:HOAX): The user constantly misinterprets primary inscriptions according to his own personal story. For instance, on the Xorai article, the user misinterprets the actual Assamese inscription "১৩১৭ সন ছাৰি শাবন মাশ" (1317 Son Chari Shavan Mash) by mistakenly interpreting the word "সন" (Son/San/Bhaskarabda Era) as the Sanskrit "শক" (Saka Era). The deliberate distortion of dating places the modern artifact (1910 CE) into an ancient past (1395 CE) by over 500 years, which is in violation of our rules of original research, unverifiable information, and historical hoax.
• False Citations and Irrelevant References WP:BOMBARD / WP:V: The user continually tries to legitimize unverifiable history statements through citation of sources, which have nothing to do with the statement itself. For instance, in trying to prove the medieval origin of the local artifacts, the user cites the archaeological studies of early Ambariware clay pottery shards. On closer inspection of these references, it becomes clear that they contain absolutely no mention of the modern ethnic bell-metal pedestal trays.

• Weaponizing Noticeboards to Destroy Content Barriers (WP:ABUSE, WP:POINT, and WP:WIKIHOUNDING): For the past five years, this user has shown a constant trend of filing retaliatory complaints against an editor or key contributor who tries to conduct an audit or fix their mistakes. This user utilizes administrative noticeboards as a weapon and engages in targeting activities to scare off new editors, initiate false sanctions, and entirely destroy all the content barriers to their narrative stories.

2. Linkage to Previous Contested Cases

In the previous day, I had filed an official case file for this manipulation of the timeline at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ananya Taye. Although despite the fact that while checking administrators had reviewed the account information technically and concluded the case as a content issue rather than a sock puppet case, the actual abuse of behavior has not been resolved at all yet. The user has reacted to this notification in form of filing trivial complaints on talk pages and noticeboards.

It has been clearly established from the history of User:Ananya Taye's user talk page that they have indulged in such behavior toward many history editors in the past years.

3. Administrative Request

It is extremely frustrating to be a local researcher working toward ensuring that the academic integrity of Assamese history is maintained and seeing how the timelines have been deliberately manipulated. In view of the fact that consensus on the talk pages has entirely broken down due to page ownership and counter reporting in bad faith, I am requesting that the administrators take a close look at the user's extensive edit history and logs on the user talk pages.

As a result of the fact that trying to fix the problems leads to instant reversions and complaints against me on the noticeboards, I have entirely stopped editing in order not to contribute to the disruption of the namespace. As a result of the fact that discussions on the content are impossible in such an environment, I feel the only thing left is to issue an account block or a permanent topic ban against User:Ananya Taye.

Ney konware (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Initially, I was planning to politely ask the author to restart this topic in their own words. Looking through their history, I think a boomerang block is warranted for LLM-generated talk page bludgeoning and forum shopping In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello admin. User LuniZunie is complaining about my past mistakes during June or July. I took a full month to polish myself up, and now I write all my articles myself. But yet they are giving me useless warnings without even seeing my current edit. All this trouble is because I flagged User:Ananya Taye yesterday. That user is filing revengeful complaints against me and is getting other editors on their side by slandering me saying that I use AI. I have taken many days for doing research for this article which is the reason for my vast knowledge of this history. This is all left on your choice, but do look at that user's history too. Ney konware (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You do, in fact, use AI. You have in this entire progression, including the notice you filed. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 18:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Admins are more than free to look at my history. But the difference in your writing between posts that are written by you, and posts that have many AI signs is interesting. – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Signs of AI?? I made a mistake last month, but how can my writing be edited? I have my own article as a PDF, so I copy and paste it directly and explain all the historical facts. I also use this on talk pages so that local editors can easily understand. I have no intention of using AI-generated writing

here Ney konware (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1368709809 – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Admins, please see this edit where I had to remove obviously AI generated text. Please see Talk:Xorai for more information about their AI usage.

I was going to take this filler to ANI anyways, but seems like they have done the work for me. I had originally given them a final AI warning here, I was then notified last night that they continued this AI usage. Note that they have admitted they are using AI here (I used AI for the sake of saving time). Multiple users have now had to intervene and they are wasting community's time. I support a boomerang on the filter here.​​​ – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I support a block unless they own up, edit other things, and stop using AI. Otherwise, I support an indef or at least a long term block. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 17:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

For transparency reasons, please be cautious and judicious when using this template, and make sure you are familiar with the guideline on canvassing.

Is there some special reason why it had to be done that particular way? ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 17:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Really? ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

They are referring to my use of the {{bcc}} template (TA, you could have been more specific). Notifying involved individuals of a discussion is not canvassing. – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I directly quoted it, it was very specific. And there is no problem also to actually answer about it, I think? I was simply curious about it, because never seen it used such way prior; it's response of one of the recipients make it looks way more controversial than expected. ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

By more specific I mean, we didn't know where you were quoting it from, that's why they responded with What are you talking about? to you. I used it just as a simple courtesy ping, basically telling people involved to move the discussion here rather than the talk page. – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I never seen it used that way, courtesy pings I witnessed prior were open, and often even included a direct accompanied wording like This is a courtesy ping. So I wondered and asked why it had to be done that particular way in this case, and you still not answered it.

But you're know from where I quoted it from, I'm not sure I'm getting that part. You'd prefer some direct link instead? In fact I think it should be included in such quoting mechanics some way for making life easier overall, but it do not yet, and people use quoting in this format all the time here still. ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Mostly when the quotes are from the current discussion. Adding diffs or piped links is appropriate in other situations for the sake of clarity. They may have recognized the quote since they're the one who used the template, but it's not clear to others. It's helpful to try to write things in such a way that anyone who comes along without prior knowledge of the subject will be able to tell what you're talking about using only the context on the current page. Not always possible, but good to keep in mind. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Using AI for the sake of saving time is oxymoronic as far as Wikipedia is concerned. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I've sent a talk page message to Ananya here because you failed to do so. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I've gave my advice already, but feels like the OP didn't care. I too suggest a boomerang for being WP:NOTHERE. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 17:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Support boomerang: I was actually on the verge of starting a discussion on OP yesterday, after continued LLM usage after multiple final warnings were given about it, and it's still gone on even in this filing. There's no point in arguing with a chatbot. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Question about size of boomerang - What is the usual length of the block for a new user filing at WP:ANI with artificial intelligence? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There's LLM and there's also not telling the truth about using LLMs -- it certainly wasn't a mistake made "last month" -- so I support a block too. As for the original complaint, there's no reason to acknowledge LLM garbage unless there's an obvious emergency. If it's important enough for OP to ask ANI, it's important enough for them to write it themself, as they're clearly capable of from the non-LLM edits. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

User behaviour issues

I wanted to bring to ANI's attention a couple of users who are persistently failing to follow rules that have been explained to them multiple times before.

• Joflaher keeps putting User:Joflaher/sandbox back into mainspace categories, despite WP:USERNOCAT — it's had to be pulled out of categories at least 29 times since it was first created, seventeen times by me and twelve times by BattyBot, and I can't speak to whether other editors have also had to remove it from categories on top of that because I only searched for myself and Battybot in the edit history. The most recent time, needless to say, was within the past hour or so. This has been addressed on their talk page before, multiple times, with their responses generally being of the "I don't understand what you're talking about" variety.
• [Stuff about second user deleted since I didn't know there was already another discussion underway about him above].

So both users clearly aren't listening when they're asked to modify their editing behaviour, and it's starting to become disruptive. I don't know that it's reached the point in either case of needing full editblocks, but it clearly needs to be escalated beyond just me addressing it by myself. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand what "putting User:joflaher/sandbox back into main categories" is. How do I avoid putting my info into main categories? If I avoid using the original version in my sandbox and when finished the info add it to the original article. Please let me know. Thank you, joflaher Joflaher (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Simple: Don't add categories to the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You avoid putting the page into categories by not putting categories on it, as has been explained to you before. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Would you please check my sandbox page now to see if is OK. If so, this is what I will do from now on. Otherwise, please give me what info on my sandbox page needs to be deleted. I will do whatever you describe. Again, thank you. joflaher Joflaher (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you see at the bottom of this edit, where you're adding several wikilinks that begin with the word "Category", and then this edit, where I'm removing them? That's what I'm talking about: pages in sandbox space cannot have categories on them, because they are not finished articles in mainspace, so you need to not add categories to the sandbox page. If you're creating or updating an article in mainspace, then that goes in categories, but your sandbox version in your personal userspace must not be in categories, and you keep it out of categories by not adding wikilinks that begin with the word "Category" to it. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have been adding to Wikipedia for about 20 years. In recent years of my texting the issue of "category" has occurred. My current text addition to "cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome" does not contain the word "category". I need you to show me where is "category" in my text. Again, thank you so much for putting up with me. joflaher Joflaher (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

< This is the last version of that text by you, follow a link, and search for a "category" "categories" word there. Then go to the currently final version > , after Bearcat removed it and compare them. ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Please forgive my but I cannot see the word "category" in my existing (as well as original) text. I never wrote "category" during my writing the text and references I also do not see this word. Would you please show me where in my text I am adding the word "category"? Sorry to bother you so much. Thank you. joflaher Joflaher (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joflaher, click the link in Bearcat's message that says "this edit". It opens a view of the edit you made, including multiple categories at the very end. Schazjmd (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I do have to say, this is exactly the same way things got derailed the last time I tried to address it in a direct one-on-one discussion: first he didn't understand what page I was talking about (even though I had already specified it), then when I kindly provided the same page link again he didn't understand how he'd put it into categories at all, then when I showed him the exact edit in which he added the page to categories he professed not to be able to find the word "category" anywhere, and then the next time the page was back in categories again he circled back to the "what page are you talking about" step for another run from the top. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If he can't see the categories in the diff, I have to question his competence, which doesn't make sense considering level of experience (#edits and longevity and advanced rights). Schazjmd (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I strongly suspect he's not actually looking at the diff at all, and instead is looking at the current version of the page, and thus failing to find the word "category" because of my edit removing the categories. (Well, either that or he didn't actually search anything at all and is just talking out of his hat...) Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Searching for category in text (of page) wouldn't provide result in either case, because they are present only as categories there (thus removing of them make no difference for a very this search). They are, obviously, searchable in provided diffs, and, also, search is normally done not verbatim way only. ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

That's only true in view mode. If you search a page in edit mode, then you see each individual category as a standalone declaration beginning with "Category", not as a block beginning with "Categories" — and, for that matter, in any mode, search results get found and highlighted with every letter you type, so searching for the singular instead of the plural (or vice versa) is no excuse, because you will have found both the plural "categories" and the singular "category" before you've even finished typing the word. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess it's prove that no search has been done in edit mode, definitely.

Real problem is: there is a whole template that is used to encourage editors to experiment in their own sandbox instead of existing articles; to not break something in process. Turned out it's possible to accidentally break stuff merely by copying some article into own sandbox, like in this case. Are there some other similar examples, when editor could break something unintentionally merely editing their own sandbox? (I don't mean some special abuse possible to be done via it, only honestly accidental.)
+ Not in case when it copied as is into a field (I understand, yes, just mean that it's technically true, that it is not searchable there with that prompt. And I tried to write it in hope it would be easier for them to find the source of all that ongoing confusion if they're would read it; I'm not trying to show for you that they're doing it all right etc). ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Likely they're just literally searched for the verbatim "category"; there is indeed no match then, I just did the exactly mistake on my own.
UPD Not explain the directly provided diff with not-yet-glued "category"es indeed. ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If he searched the exact link I gave him to search, he would hit the verbatim "category" three times. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I cannot see the word "category" in my existing (as well as original) text. I never wrote "category" during my writing the text

I meant that in very this form it is true, as it's not searchable then, and likely they were copied from somewhere as a bulk, so not "written". Not explains the directly provided diff, as I wrote the same time as you did above. ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joflaher, may I suggest that you use Template:Draft categories if you're working on a draft or sandbox. You could put the categories in the template like this:

{{Draft categories|[[Category:Foo]]
[[Category:Bar]]
}}

The links will show up on your draft or sandbox, but will not categorize the page unless it is moved into article space. If the template is used in article space, the categories work as normal. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I was going to ask, can't categories in unfinished drafts (especially in personal sandboxes) be commented out (instead of outright deletion) so they can easily be uncommented when moved to mainspace; but {{Draft Categories}} may in fact be a better solution. --~2026-44023-18 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(Suggestion) Bearcat, why don't we leave this discussion for Joflaher. For LoganDocMan2000, the second half of your comment could be added to #Disruptive edits within many templates (primarily regarding categories) above which is already about LoganDocMan2000. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair, I didn't realize there was already a discussion about Logan underway. Yeah, I'll accept that advice. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Samalik16

Samalik16 (talk · contribs) has long been making disruptive and questionable edits to various articles, incorporating original research content, or citing user-generated sources, as well as adding content inappropriately; I just noticed that in this edit, in the "Saya as part of Lolicon" section (added by them), they even included a Google Drive link. These are just a few examples of the kinds of edits they typically make. I've addressed these issues on their talk page numerous times, and their replies usually seem to miss the point, often making excuses such as claiming that they're a a novice user who simply makes mistakes (this is despite the fact that their account has been active since October 2019, they have made more than 1,070 edits, and have been editing regularly). Assuming that the user is indeed trying to contribute constructively, I think this is a WP:CIR case, as their edits still require other editors to constantly revise and correct their contributions, and if things continue this way, I wonder how many more edits and time will take before they start editing properly. Reading their talk page, I don't seem to be the only one who finds their contributions problematic. Xexerss (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

wait, what? You're coming to me accusing me of bad faith before and now you're jumping to this?

has long been making disruptive and questionable edits to various articles

Apparently trying to add information that seems to be relevant to the topic is somehow "disruptive and questionable"

or citing user-generated sources, as well as adding content inappropriately; I just noticed that in this edit, in the "Saya as part of Lolicon" section (added by them), they even included a Google Drive link.

Don't look at me for a google drive link provided by an academic writer, I'm just making sure it's quickly found from without needing to pay for something self-published for free. I didn't know Drive was somehow a problem.

I've addressed these issues on their talk page numerous times, and their replies usually seem to miss the point,

Yeah, and one time you slapped me with 3 excessive warnings when not even 5 minutes have passed. And only you did that.

You even blanket undid all the progress in the articles, even good faiths edits on Arcanadia, which is a relatively newer model kit series, and you did not even check to see what it was about before undoing it like it was vandalism. Just blind deletion of someone else's work instead of trying to help build the article up to be better. Blanket Undos of a string of articles is a habit I've been seeing of yours, and in my opinion, is more arguably disruptive than what I'm trying to do, which is just make the article more in line with what is understood by enthusiasts.

You even tried removing how Strike Witches is a fantasy analogue/parody of WWII, removed mentions of the wider World Witches series that its part of (which includes the likes of Brave Witches and Luminous Witches) and even removed the magical girl tag, in a japanese series about witches. WP:COMMONSENSE also has its place too, especially in the light of our most recent conversation on Lolicon. I've already complained to you being overly pedantic before, but looking back, this is ridiculous.

often making excuses such as claiming that they're a a novice user who simply makes mistakes (this is despite the fact that their account has been active since October 2019, they have made more than 1,070 edits, and have been editing regularly)

Time spent is not always time easily learned? I didn't even know about the minor m edit thing until as of recently until someone have me in a minor notice. Beforehand I thought it was something of lesser information before someone told me. No big red stop sign or anything. Just a "hey, you got this wrong, be careful with it" and now try to actively avoid it. Wikipedia has a lot of systems to wrap one's head around beyond just simple editing.

Besides that, it must be real easy saying this behind a twinkle extension (1 ,2, 3) while I can barely figure out how that thing works. I usually use stock visual editing for that precise reason. I got no problems with you using that on paper, but trying to drag this into an "incompetency case" is pretty nonsensical when I'm still flying vanilla, more or less, thus having to bash my head against the wall more.

Assuming that the user is indeed trying to contribute constructively, I think this is a WP:CIR case, as their edits still require other editors to constantly revise and correct their contributions,

You mean, the point of Wikipedia? To collectively build a better article??? If something is wrong, WP:DIY.

"Reading their talk page, I don't seem to be the only one who finds their contributions problematic"

I was formally warned for edit waring that was trying to keep the article honest and apologized for my behavior in the most recent one before going back and trying to follow said Admin(?) Yue's advice on how to edit in the article in its talk page, of which I appreciated his help. We already discussed this over on your talk page. Samalik16 (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

User:IZAK

Historically, User:IZAK has been noted to engage in disruptive behavior. There was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673#Proposal to sanction IZAK, etc.

Sadly, this has not stopped, despite the numerous discussions on their behavior and their long years on Wikipedia.

For example, this administrator openly says that IZAK told them to vote on a discussion at Special:Diff/1367580564 and Special:Diff/1367581535. This was presumably done off-wiki, since I couldn't find the notification in their talk page history. This is even more worring.

Also, User:Yonkeltron, who had not not edited since December 2025, suddenly breaks their leave to vote in two low-level discussions that IZAK also happened to vote on Special:Diff/1367579059 and Special:Diff/1367578785. The notification for this was also off-wiki.

This canvassing was after he reverted some changes I made by on some categories (Special:Diff/1367279187, Special:Diff/1367279275, Special:Diff/1367279328), so he also WP:HOUNDED me.

He also bludgeoned the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in East Africa page.

Interestingly, when he was informing WikiProjects of that discussion, he did not bother to notify the Africa WikiProject. Only Jewish ones, and for some reason, the Israel WikiProject (Special:Diff/1367409688, Special:Diff/1367409688, Special:Diff/1367409084). I think this was done because he wanted to have people with his POV vote there. This is because of the omission of notification of a relevant WikiProject, and the notification of an irrelevant one.

I think it is time to say that enough is enough, and put an end to this user's continuous disruption by indefinitely blocking them. It is unlikely for someone who has not learned in 23 years to learn in some more. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat and AI communications

Some of my recent interactions with Metalicat at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Algorithmic amplification/archive1 (a FAC which, for transparency, I opposed) raised red flags for me as it felt their communication was not written by a person: ie this resposne (and those surrounding them). Reviews like this and follow up like this strengthen my feeling that there is a pattern of LLM use in communication, in violation of our guidelines on the subject. A spot check of contributions suggests similar reviews going back a ways (March of this year). I'm not too sure about the extent of this, but at least one reviewer has raised concerns about source to text integrity in the past, and to me it is a serious violation of community trust if this user has indeed not only communicated through LLMs but to engaged in our review processes with them. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I have used AI assistance in my Wikipedia work, particularly for mechanical and consistency checks, source discovery and locating material that I then verify against the source myself. I remain responsible for what I post and for checking the underlying sources. I have read the current guidance on LLM use and will follow it in my Wikipedia work.

For context, Eddie and I were discussing the article in good faith only yesterday, and I appreciated his offer to continue helping with it. I do not mention that to dismiss the concern he has raised, only because I want to respond to it in the same constructive spirit. Metalicat (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The current guideline on LLM use allows just for basic copy editing and translating articles from another language's Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify that point, the restriction you are describing is the rule on using LLMs to generate or rewrite article content. The same guidance also says that the ban does not cover indirect use of LLMs "adjacent to editing", and gives examples such as spotting structural problems and generating ideas for articles. Those are the kinds of uses I was referring to above. Metalicat (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft page removed while still working on it

I spent more than 15 hours this past weekend revising a entry that had been previously denied for a variety of reasons. I had worked to address each and every one of the reasons for the denial but one to review one last time before resubmitting it. I came back today to find the entire page was deleted. That seems unfair when it was clear it was a draft and being worked on.

Can it be please be restored, so I can finalize and resubmit it please. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ASteve_Rigby&oldid=1368297302

WikiSandi22! (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Tonton09 - persistent disruptive editing and failure to communicate

Tonton09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received many warnings and messages about their editing, yet nothing changes. Specific messages advising them include this and this. Despite that their editing today is just more of the same, all without edit summaries:

• Unreferenced addition
• Unreferenced addition, also in violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE
• Category not verified in article
• Category not verified in article
• Unreferenced addition, also in violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE
• Unreferenced addition, also in violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

All attempts to communicate with this editor have failed, they've never acknowledged any message they've received. FDW777 (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)