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

Lightbreather and gun control editing

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

---

As a CTOP action to enforce WP:ARBAP, editors in this discussion are limited to 500 words total. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Lightbreather is an editor who focuses almost exclusively on gun control and American gun politics. They frequently add content about these things to general firearms articles, and whenever their edits are challenged, they engage with hostility on the talk page toward anyone disagreeing with their (often coatrackish) additions. They were primarily active 2013–2015 but recently resumed activity. This has led to other editors, primarily Springee and Anastrophe, getting into extended back-and-forths with them across several disputes. It's my understanding that both of these editors were already active on articles like this, but I would've suggested taking it here to ANI to avoid WP:HOUNDING. A non-exhaustive list of examples from the last couple months includes Talk:Drum magazine, Talk:Magazine (firearms), Talk:AR-15–style rifle, WP:RSN, User talk:Lightbreather, User talk:Lightbreather, User talk:Lightbreather, User talk:Anastrophe, and User talk:Anastrophe.

I was unaware of the fact when I wrote the above paragraph, but after looking at the block log and previous ANI posts to see how much they've previously been warned, I found that Lightbreather was arbcom-banned in 2015 in relation to their gun control editing. They successfully appealed the ban in 2022, and they successfully appealed the gun control topic ban in 2025, at which point they almost immediately began engaging in this sort of conduct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

You should provide specific edits with links so other editors can evaluate them. TFD (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Concur with The Four Deuces. We can't sift through lots and lots of diffs to find the needles in the haystack you are referring to. Help us out? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I read (and commented in) the recent RSN thread they were involved in, there were some pretty aggressive comments like this one: Springee, why do you keep misrepresenting this source? It is not exclusively about policy, and you know it.[1] Another one that caught my eye was LB asking a question, and in response to the (I think fairly reasonable) reply posting Answer the question please.[2] LB was far from the only one behaving that way in the discussion though.

From looking at some of the threads in the OP, this appears to be a theme. I hope that Lightbreather can see that the interactions with Anastrophe and Springeee were pretty toxic. That's not me saying LB is fully to blame or anything like that (these editors seem to have ancient history with each other that I don't care to dig up), but LB is at least also engaging in the toxicity, and needs to step away from the brink, breathe deeply and WP:AGF more. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Samuelshraga, indeed, LB is NOT fully to blame, and they're editing against a number of editors who in a passive-aggressive manner export their POV into article space. It helps that they are up against only Lightbreather, typically, and thus escape charges of edit warring. Drmies (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

In the RSN discussion, LB was not editing against a number of editors. But that aside, I don't think the dynamic you're describing really provides a defence - just an additional complaint about some other editors. Reading through some of OP's links, I see some eyebrow-raising contributions. This very public retirement announcement on an article talk page for one.[3] Anastrophe's response to it highlighted LB's reference to search engine results in a way that mirrors what I thought reading that part: So that's what the endgame of all this was. Influencing search results on the internet at large, to push one's personal agenda.[4]

Then follows a particularly poisonous back and forth on user talk linked to by OP.[5] LB accuses A of being obsessed with her, WP:GAMING, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TAGTEAMING and (this is kind of ironic) not taking conduct disputes to noticeboards. If she can stand that up, a report would probably be appropriate, but whether she's right or not I don't think making loud threats to retire from the site on article talk (taking ample parting shots at other editors) and then pretty much immediately returning to the same page and topic and getting stuck in with the same editors is great form. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion that lead to that was full of FORUM from Springee and Anastrophe about electric cars, the Thompson submachine gun, ammo belts,[6] clothes dryers, wheelbarrows,[7] trucks and their wheel bases,[8] and so on. I actually let myself get sucked in temporarily discussing washing machines, and when I stopped, Anastrophe came at me for not defining high-capacity washing machine.[9] The final straw was when Anastrophe quoted from my ARCA in brightly colored text on two separate article talk pages.[10][11] Between that and all the aspersions, I lost it. It's not a great excuse, but it does happen. I'm sorry our back-and-forth caused disruption. Though I was able to get the discussion redirected: Talk:Magazine_(firearms)/Archives/2026/June#Recap_and_reset. Lightbreather (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I read the first two links and I don't think that's WP:FORUM. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, those are boringly pedestrian analogies. Qwirkle (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I apologize. That's what I get for working from memory on the wp:somethings. Whichever the one is that describes what is going on in those discussion. Where counterarguments are about electric cars and Tommy guns and clothes dryers instead of the subject at hand and what its sources say. I've searched all the wp:jargon I can remember, but can't find it. I'm sorry. Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

There isn’t any policy against using analogies in an argument. WP:FORUM is about keeping tweens from discussing their favorite Pokemon at great length, and things like that. Qwirkle (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to write this and try to stay away for a bit. As TFD and Hammersoft have observed, the OP has provided ZERO diffs - just links to full conversations where readers and myself are supposed to suss out exactly what he's referring to.

That kind of stuff is really hard to respond to succinctly. I do hope anyone who is taking the time to read these often long discussions can appreciate some of the things Springee, Anastrophe, and others have written. Also, kindly refer to where I have responded to others here... Except maybe Anastrophe. Those often get quite personal and are about equally not collegial. I have written elsewhere here in response to some accusations, but I'm having trouble keeping up.

A couple observations that readers may or may not know is that:

1. Springee is not participating because apparently he is banned from doing so on the notice boards. He recently got this lifted long enough to start a close review (on this very subject) at WP:AN, but I don't think he's sought permission to speak here. The review supported the close the last time I looked, but it has since rolled into the archives.[12]] As I mentioned elsewhere, Springee is mostly civil, but he does sometimes throw accusations at me. (One week into our first real discussion after Mudwater merged HCM and HCMB into Magazine (firearms) he threw an ICANTHEARYOU at me. He's thrown a few others since then too.) And the way he and his cronies talk about consensus, you'd think I was the only editor in these discussions defending sources and content they disagree with. He is quite the stonewaller and resists collaborating. He just deletes what he doesn't like.

2. North8000 was banned from gun-related topics some years ago. That has since been lifted, but I presented evidence in that ArbCom. I don't think any was about him, but it may have affected the way he sees me and my edits.

3. Anastrophe has had quite a few warnings put on his page about his behavior and even more comments about it that never grew into formal warnings. His anger at me borders on rage and I find it frightening. Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

"Anastrophe has had quite a few warnings put on his page about his behavior and even more comments about it that never grew into formal warnings. His anger at me borders on rage and I find it frightening."

Oh please. This reads as performative more than anything else ('I feel scared and threatened by Anastrophe, gosh, maybe this declaration can convince some rube to propose a site ban on him, I can't propose it because of my sketchy past history, but maybe someone will take the bait'). I'd love a direct quote that you contend is me expressing 'anger at [you] border[ing] on rage' (but given your tendency to grossly broad 'interpretations', who knows what we'll get in return). Give me a break. I've had a small handful of warnings in two decades here; it's an acorn to a mighty oak compared to OP. I can speak in strong tones, blunt and aggressive even, and sometimes express my frustration - all true, but as before, I've never threatened you or anyone else, I'm a pacifist, and I've no idea who you are or where you live (unlike the poor folks you doxxed in years past), so the notion that anything about me is frightening is ridiculous - yes, ridiculous. I'm in my sixties; the last time I 'engaged in physical violence' was in third grade when Bobby G<redacted>o was bullying me so I punched him in the chest. I sometimes shed tears watching videos of adorable puppies and kittens. I'm a downright menace to society.

You fooled a few admins/arbiters/whatever into believing your claims of reformation. You broke a promise that was predicate to your return. I predicted this. I warned of this. All I got in response was derision.

I like the "he and his cronies" bullshit slung at Springee by the way. Sure thing, we're all working together, we're a cabal, it's a conspiracy, and we're all out to get poor little LB. For the record, I've never communicated off-wiki with any of the other people who were pinged about this action or any of the other editors of gun related articles, and I'm pretty sure I've never communicated on-wiki directly with any of them either. I did have one email conversation with a user who participated in gun-related articles years ago, but she stopped participating on WP many, many years ago (pre- your ban).

I'd hazard that I may have clicked the 'thank' button on one of those assorted editor's contributions at some time, but I'm not even sure about that - I use the 'thank' button generously - I've even clicked it on some of your contributions, shockingly. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hammersoft, up until 17:30 UTC yesterday, when I asked if this could be closed (at least pending a final decision), the oppose and support !votes were nearly evenly divided (17 to 18, if I counted them correctly). Since I asked, there have been 3 oppose !votes and 7 support (including two TAs). I am worried about a pile-on. Also, it seems there is plenty for whomever closes this to consider. Is there a way this can be closed to further discussion and voting? As I commented elsewhere, Anastrophe alone has already added nearly 3,000 words to this discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I may reply to your summarization and accusations later, but for now I'd like to shine a light on Anastrophe's interactions with me early in the ongoing high-capacity magazine discussions. You can get an idea of how he talks to me. (I suspect from his edit history and talk-page archives I'm not the only one.)

His first interactions with me at the "High-capacity magazine" article, May 2026:

• "Your preferred source states ... Unless you are suggesting ... That would beggar belief. ... Or is your preferred source the only source allowed?"[13]
• "The claim that ... [is] laughable, and calls into question its use here."[14]
• "Are you familiar with the difference between a definition, and a vernacular characterization? ... Strikes me as distractive. ... Drop the stick"[15]
• "... it's not a productive use of anyone's time to continue litigating."[16]
• He dropped quotes, in green and red text, from my ARCA into the middle of an article talk page discussion.[17]

At this point, about May 16, the HCM article was merged by Mudwater into the "Magazine (firearms)" article. Anastrophe's interactions with me there:

• He accused me of BATTLEGROUND and OWNERSHIP [18]
• "Back and forth and back and forth. I can play tit for tat as well - you dodged my 'demand' for a definition of a high-capacity washing machine - merely reverting to handwaving and more arguments that do damage to your campaign."[19]
• "Nice gatekeeping."[20]
• He quoted from my ARCA again, in blue and red, in the middle of another article talk page discussion.[21]

After this, I started "Reminder" (about our earliest history) at his talk page: User_talk:Anastrophe/Archive_2026#Reminder

He disappeared for awhile, but returned again recently. His interactions with me are about the same as before. Lightbreather (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm no bureaucrat and have not been through the ins-and-outs of ANI processes. I was notified of this thread via a mention on Lightbreather's User Talk and will offer my experiences in relation to High-capacity magazine and High-capacity magazine ban.

• I encountered Lightbreather when they sought to reverse the outcome of an AfD [[22]] on the basis it was initiated by User:Iljhgtn - a sockpuppet editor who had subsequently been banned. Lightbreather dubbed the merge as BADFAITH on the basis of it's instigator, despite the outcome being a unanimous Merge from a large number of non-sock editors. The broad consensus was pointed out, but Lightbreather was seemingly very agitated that the AfD had been proposed by a sock. Whilst such proposals may well deserve scrutiny and reappraisal, in this case the consensus was clear and situation was fine as-was - they were part of a duplicative sprawl of gun articles which were DUE merging and tidying. Many editors pointed out that the phrase "high capacity magazine" - outside the context of legal restrictions (which were adequately covered) - was just marketing cruft and about as notable as a "high capacity battery" or Yeti announcing a new "High Capacity water bottle".
• Running against consensus, Lightbreather boldly reverted the merges on High-capacity magazine ban and High-capacity magazine and went on an edit spree. Both have since gone through another successful AfD, at the nomination of Springee (I was uninvolved in those AfDs, having disengaged). Lightbreather opposed the merge, opening with the comment "Oppose First, we wouldn't even be here if sockpuppet User:Iljhgtn hadn't brought "High-capacity magazine ban"". They are seemingly obsessed with the fact that a stuck clock was right twice a day and refuse to accept the broader consensus, based on the actual merits of the subject. This shows a real lack of respect for their fellow editors. They are right, everyone else is wrong,WP:ICANTHEARYOU.
• Prior to Springee's AfD, Lightbreather heavily edited the restored articles, sweeping up a variety of disparate sources to bolster their claim that the topics met GNG and staunchly defended the notability of both articles. Many of their sources did not appear to pass muster, were WP:TRIVIA or were misrepresented.
  • In one instance they claimed high capacity magazines were increasingly used in a particular target shooting discipline when the source clearly referred to "high capacity 1911-style firearms" - a type of firearm rather than magazine. Lightbreather than legislated over this insisted I needed to provide sources to counter their source. I suggested they did not have the domain knowledge required to edit this topic. Raising the issue of WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED seemed more polite than assuming WP:BADFAITH. At this point I did not know about their prior topic ban. They insisted they did have the expertise, but it became clear that I needed to source every minutiae to the extent of WP:BLUE to satisfy them, or else they would simply state that I was conducting WP:OR. Sources are vital, but the correct response in this case should have been "Oh yes, my bad, that's not talking about high capacity magazines at all, but about the firearms themselves. It says so in the text".
  • At this point, the discussions were starting to feel like Brandolini's law - Lightbreather could put any source forward that they liked and oppononents would need massively more sources to counter, which still might not prevail because the goalposts felt like they were constantly moving. I disengaged and went on vacation (actual vacation. Dubrovnik is beautiful. Strongly recommend).
• It appears that Lightbreather has not accepted the consensus of the AfD and is now trying to UNDUEly expand the HCM section of Magazine (firearms). In my view (and I am not claiming BADFAITH here, but I am sorry I can no longer assume GOODFAITH), this is to inflate the section to a point where they can argue it needs it's own article, because they want to revert the AfD. Again.
  • I provided a single response to their RfC in order to submit my position on the matter (I have taken the decision not to engage in debate or discussion with Lightbreather, because it's like talking to a wall, and I recognise that I may get frustrated and eventually uncivil. So in with my position and facts, and out). I commented on the fact we're discussing a nebulous marketing term which defies definition, that the section as was written was confusing, vague and not possible to clean up. I noted that the standard Glock 17 17-round magazine was both standard and "High Capacity" and quipped that we could call this "Lightbreather's Paradox". A gentle jibe that I thought cut to the heart of the issue. That one line was my only deviation from pure point-of-fact. Lightbreather suggested this was a Personal Attack and did not engage with the substance of my post. I did not reply because it was clear that they were unwilling to engage with facts that opposed their POV. I should like to think that a gentle quip would be met with a wry smile, but my apologies if it was not received as intended. If I chose to engage in personal attacks, there would be no question about what I was saying. However, unlike Lightbreather I am capable of taking a WP:WALK.
• My impressions are:
  • Lightbreather is POV-editing and WP:BLUDGEONING the issue, in defiance of clear consensus that has emerged over multiple AfDs.[23][24][25] They lean heavily on "But a Sock proposed the AfDs so they must be wrong".
  • In the specifics of my interactions, it feels adjacent to WP:EXISTS in that, yes the phrase "High-Capacity Magazine" exists and is used in sources, but it's meaning in any given source is highly context-specific. The only consistency exists in relation to bans/legislation/policy, which is not in question, and has a good section.
  • They are extremely Wiki-savvy, and happy to WP:LAWYER an issue into submission. Whether they realise it or not, they are effectively bullying other contributors out of articles through escalating demands, sometimes to prove a negative. This feels like performative naivety/"Just asking questions", but ultimately leaves them alone to edit articles as they see fit, having exhausted everyone else.
  • Opening a discussion about a user on a different user's talk page is... weird. It's moving into WP:BATTLEGROUND territory (Do not insult, disparage, harass, or try to intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement).
  • I find Lightbreather's habit of clearing their Talk page strange. In light of knowing about their topic ban, it seems more that it's a tactic to avoid people realising they have been challenged multiple times on a subject.
  • Having now read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather (Which I have literally just done, AFTER writing everything above), it feels extremely familiar. In particular the section Lightbreather#Intransgience. It's quite a shocking read, and Lightbreather has my greatest sympathies for off-wiki harassment, which is terrible and a poor reflection on the project. However two wrongs don't make a right and does not excuse continued intransigent behaviour.

Hemmers (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hemmers, man! Talk about WP:BLUE! You have posted so many opinions that I'm not going to try to respond to every accusation.

1st bullet: I only participated in the third and last AfD, started by Springee.[26] (The first two, including the one Hemmers links to above, were started by the sockpuppet.) I was the only one who !voted in opposition to the merge, but Mudwater and Drmies (who did not !vote) questioned the clarity of Springee's proposal. Also, the second AfD pinged the participants of the first, and the third AfD pinged the participants of the second, so they were only a formality and the outcome preordained. I asked that the third one be opened to a wider audience, but it never was.

The sockpuppet's edits were obviously BADFAITH, but DENY and BANBLOCKDIFF also apply.

2nd/3rd: I reverted the merges done by the sockpuppet while the third AfD was underway. When Springee started the AfD, a notice was put on the HCM page inviting editors to improve it.

4th: I'm not even going to get into this again. Hemmers thinks I don't know the difference between a 1911 and a 2011. It all boils down to whether or not a double-stack magazine is HC. Some will say it is, others will say it isn't. The source I used was an article on the NRA Shooting Sports website.[27] I had others, too, but since I was getting nowhere, I finally gave up.

5th: Brandolini's law = bullshit asymmetry principle. Got it. I don't know what he's referring to. As for asking for sources, I kept giving them and Springee kept asking for more.

6th: The "High-capacity magazine" section is barely 5% of the total article and placed near the bottom of the article, just above the "High-capacity magazine ban" section. I am not the only active editor who believes that high-capacity isn't just a legal/political term... and we provided loads of sources. (Though Springee has different standards for when sources can be used, depending on whether or not they support his argument.[28])

7th: That was when you backhandedly called me a liar. It wasn't a gentle jibe.[29]

As for Hemmers' "impressions" - Whoa! I hadn't read the bludgeoning essay in a while. If that applies to me, it must also apply to Springee. (We can both be quite verbose.) I absolutely disagree with H. throwing EXISTS at me, considering I'm not the only editor who agrees about there being two kinds of high-capacity magazines. On lawyering, again, let's please also consider Springee. Finally, BATTLEGROUND starts, "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts...." That would be Anastrophe (diffs in previous comments). I don't think Springee has a grudge with me, and I don't have a grudge with him. He's mostly pretty civil. But he's also unwilling to truly collaborate on a couple topics.

Re Hemmers' "Opening a discussion" comment: That user had pinged me to another article talk page[30] It would have been bad form to say what I wanted to say in the article discussion, although I did make a brief remark there.[31] I also asked Springee if he had a COI,[32] based on something he said about "professional editors" feelings about what is due. I didn't think it would be right to say anything more there. Lightbreather (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

"[...] "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts...." That would be Anastrophe (diffs in previous comments)."

It's not a grudge to expect that when: an editor is site banned for seven years for multiple bad behaviors; pleads for return via a "Dear community" promise as part of the rationale ("FIRST, I won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages. Not just because of my topic ban, but also because I do not want to edit there. The topic still interests me as a person, but not as a Wikipedia editor."); is unbanned with significant restrictions (including gun topics); edits productively for a few years; lobbies to have all restrictions removed because they're a productive editor - while tendering 'Dear community' again as justification/rationale; has all but one restriction rescinded; "retires" because one restriction wasn't rescinded (1RR); then five months later returns to editing (at what now is virtually WP:SPA level) gun related topics; with many of the same patterns and bad behaviors that contributed to a seven year site ban...

...no, that's not a grudge. That's expecting a person to honor their goddamned promise that contributed to successfully having their restrictions lifted. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask, considering the totality of the circumstances. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines grudge as a feeling of deep-seated resentment or ill will. Everything you wrote after "no, that's not a grudge"... is a grudge. Lightbreather (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

If you remember, I also had to explain to you how you how you were threatening/hounding me.[33] Lightbreather (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You "explained" nothing. You presented a fanciful, broad-beyond-the-margins interpretation of what constitutes "threats to disrupt a person's work on wikipedia". I tendered no threats. That's not to say that my actions weren't inappropriate and potentially sanctionable; I did acknowledge my actions bumped into 'hounding' territory. I did tender an apology for my actions postings, but when you started presenting various 'remedies' beyond my apology, I was done. I did no damage;I pointed out that you broke your word to 'the community'. The damage done rests solely in your actions. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

... when you started presenting various 'remedies' beyond my apology, I was done.

The only "remedies" I suggested (the suggestion started with "If") was to strike the stuff from ARCA that you posted on article talk pages. Those posts were threatening. You could have brought your anger here to ANI or taken it to ARCA. I told you several times to take your complaints to the appropriate forum. But you didn't. You won't start a complaint at these places. You told me so yourself:

No, it's because I despise bureaucracy with the heat of a thousand suns, so intentionally staying ignorant of how the medieval processes work prevents me from falling down that fucking wormhole.

And yet here you are. Lightbreather (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If quoting your own words constitutes a threat - well, there's more amiss here than I can possibly address in this lifetime. Good luck with that.

Intentionally staying ignorant of the minutia of the smorgasbord of turgid bureaucratic panels and administrative actions and arbitration councils and Department of Redundany Departments and fuel tenders and court jesters and chamber maids on WP is one thing (I don't even know wtf "ARCA" is, lol). Responding in a thread that involves me is not that. You've opined before that there's something nefarious in my refusal to be sucked into wikipedia's bureaucracies - that like some master criminal, I cracked the code to prevent having things "boomerang" on me - by not diving feet first into the bureaucratic processes as you have done throughout your career here. Input to a process already in place is not the same as putting on a green visor and poring over the minutia of fine-print rules for proper 'format' in XYZ bureaucratic venue in order to perform a formal action is entirely different.

But - you will hang onto whatever you need to hang on to. You are obviously within your rights to file formal actions against me - as can anyone else privy to all this horseshit. I can't stop you or anyone from doing that. Not in my power. If I'm sanctioned, so be it. As I've pointed out before, I've been here two decades, been scolded a few times, and even blocked for a few days here and there.(Hey, I figured out how to view my block logs! 15 October 2007 - blocked for 24 hours (3RR). 12 February 2020 - blocked for 48 hours (edit warring)...that doesn't seem right, I thought there were at least three, possibly four. Might be doing it wrong.)

Oh dear. I just looked up a different editor's history. Oh dear. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If quoting your own words constitutes a threat...

Why did you choose to quote me on not one but two article talk pages? (rhetorical question) If your intention was purely to remind me of what I'd said, or to register your anger, you could have posted on my talk page. Your intention was to get the attention of others. Consider what you did in light of the harassment policy:

Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated...

Threatening another person is considered harassment.

Lightbreather (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, if your own words can be construed as making a threat, I'm still boggled. But since you persist: My first reply to your claim that I had tendered a threat was similarly baffled: "What, exactly, am I threatening? Please - quote - chapter and verse. I don't see a threat of anything, or even a carefully veneered implication of a threat. I want you to go away like you promised, I have no interest in drawing this out further.".

And for further clarity, the actual text of the subhead threats in the harrassment policy:

"Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes any real-world threats, such as threats of harm, and threats to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia. Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats. Legal threats are a special case of threat, with their own settled policy. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely.

The use of "statements of intent" re formal proceedings makes it quite clear the context in which 'threat' is being described: making a threat. I didn't say "you better leave wikipedia or bad things will happen". I just quoted your own very public words.

But since you persist: I'll quote you above in reply to me avoiding taking actions on others in wp bureaucracy: "And yet here you are.". I take that as a threat to my ability to participate in an action promulgated by someone else. It seems you're saying that I should not participate here. You didn't say "Anastrophe, you'd better stop posting here or bad things will happen". But I've decided to interpret it as if you did.

I made no threat to to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia. I've no control of your broad interpretation, which more than anything, strikes me as 'gauntlet thrown and codified for potential future option of requesting sanctions/punishment' rather than an honest interpretation. Considering there's not been a scintilla of restraint on your participation on WP since I posted those, the suggestion that you found it intimidating seem hollow. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I found User:Scalhotrod (and a few other editors) intimidating, and yet I kept editing. It's possible to be scared and still screw your courage to the sticking place. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

You can't see into my head; you are projecting your own feelings and interpretation. I would love to return to the few years after the ban was lifted (with restrictions), which - again - I voted for. Hardly grudge material voting for removal of a total site ban. Removal of the topic ban on gun-related article space was a mistake, that is absolutely patent. It needs to be restored.

We had precisely zero interactions during your several year return with restrictions. None. Nada. Silence Obtained. Why? Because you were productively editing the encyclopedia. No drama. No months-long refusals to accept consensus decisions, wikilawyering, 'I don't hear you'. I didn't follow you around the encyclopedia looking for ways to trip you up, or trying to find evidence of recalcitrance, or hounding you to try to elicit a response. Those, I would think, would be grudge behaviors. The last thing I want is more interaction with you. TMOT. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hemmers, despite the fact that you don't know why I blanked my talk page archives, I took 45 minutes out of my morning restoring them just for you and others who think I'm being sneeky. Lightbreather (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I happen to be with LB on this matter. The rules and guidelines for user talk pages are clearly spelled out, and, within a very limited set of circumstances, an editor can pretty much do whatever they want with content on that page. Some archive. Some blank. Some never touch what's there and leave decades of comments in place. All are allowed, none implicate any specific underlying behaviors. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

While I admittedly have a long history with agreeing with LB on content & policy, but these seem like disputes over policy and content as well, rather than disruptive malicious behavior. Is there evidence of disruptive intent, and if so, is it only limited to LB's comments? DN (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

(Pinged) I don't know what this multiyear overview would lead to, but IMO they devote an immense amount of time, expertise, cleverness and Wiki-savvyness editing towards a particular POV on politically-related firearm articles, and this appears to be nearly their only wiki-activity. I don't know if bludgeoning is the right word, but this results in them dominating articles where the other editors are only able to devote a more typical amount of time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• The Committee lifted some of LB's restrictions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_133#Amendment_request:_Lightbreather, a mere 8 months ago. I imagine we could hear the issue again at WP:ARCA if her issues have returned. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  The behaviors have assuredly returned. A couple of rudimentary diffs should be illustrative.

  Here's a diff of all comments on Talk:Magazine (firearms) from October 2014, after the editor in question was banned, and May of this year, when editor in question resumed editing firearm articles - twelve years of talk page comments in one diff:

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMagazine_%28firearms%29&diff=1354469784&oldid=628921096

  And here's a diff of the same talk page, just since the editor returned to editing gun-related article in May - not even two months :

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magazine_(firearms)&diff=cur&oldid=1218075074

  Comparing the two should be enlightening. This is same battleground behavior that contributed to the site ban. I warned of this eventuality during the lobbying-for-rescission interval in Oct/Nov 2025.[34]

  
  

  If an action is promulgated, hopefully I'll be notified. I was never notified when the site ban was being discussed in 2014. I did learn of the unban effort in 2022, and - I think notably - I lobbied to have the site ban lifted.

  Removal of the gun-related topics ban was a mistake. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't necessarily prove anything because:

  1. A 12 year diff does not actually show all the text added to the page within 12 years. It just shows the page wasn't very active at the beginning and also wasn't very active at the end. It doesn't say anything about the intervening period.

  2. Of course if there's a local consensus on a page, and an editor who disagrees with that consensus enters the topic area, there's going to be a lot of discussion to hammer out the consensus. That doesn't necessarily mean the WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY editor is being disruptive by disagreeing. Loki (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  You can easily visit the archive pages for those years and review them. And the overall edit history of the talk page. It'll take about 90 seconds to confirm. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  CaptainEek, I will be emailing ArbCom quite soon about why I'm working in this specific topic area (high-capacity magazines) as well as when I plan to retire. Lightbreather (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  What's the ArbCom email address, may I ask? I'd like to email the same address you'll be privately emailing. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Anastrophe, there's no need to email us. As LB has been directly advised, none of what was sent to us requires off-wiki consideration, and therefore if it is to be considered, it should be shared on-wiki rather than through email back-channels. Daniel (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. It's the whiff of 'I have back-channel access and communication with (potentially friendly) admins' that bothers the hell out of me. Cloakroom machinations are a bad look.

  I would still like to know: is there an "ArbCom email address" that broadcasts to all arbiters without distinction? I ask since editor has been non-responsive to the inquiry. To be clear, if there is a 'broadcast' address, I don't need it, nor does it need to be shared publicly (which is probably undesirable to put it mildly). I would just like to clear up the distinction and implications of editors statement. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  See WP:ARBCOM, which covers how to contact the committee. Quick answer is yes, arbcom-enwikimedia.org. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've been pondering this discussion and I have a question. User:Thebiguglyalien: As far as I can tell, we've only ever had one exchange, just a couple days ago. You posted on a talk page and I gave a brief, innocuous reply.[35] That's it. Our whole exchange. And an hour later you started this ANI. Why? Lightbreather (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It was after reading the other relevant discussions. As I said above, the other editors in my opinion should have sought outside assistance once the issue became intractable, but instead it spiraled over a wide area. I felt this was a better alternative than joining the spiral, as tempting as that would be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Sound like you could have done better, then, than directing this at one particular editor, who is kind of an easy target. North8000, please don't think that the "other side" is without a POV or wiki-savvyness. LB happens to be pretty much alone in editing those articles in disagreement with the other editors, but if I had world enough and time I'd be in that same position. And you know I appreciate you, but I also know where your particular POV is. Just to make the matter clear to the onlooking admins and arbs, I don't see anything in LB's edits that warrant reproach. Drmies (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

"LB happens to be pretty much alone in editing those articles in disagreement with the other editors." This isn't exactly accurate. Lightbreater gets pretty steady support from @Katzrockso in the discussion on Talk:Magazine (firearms). That editor is the more aggressive of the two in that discussion, actually. Intothatdarkness 12:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Drmies When I edit Wikipedia my only agenda is article improvement. E.G. my few edits posts in the above-discussed articles were for neutral and unambiguous terminology and articles with a clear subject. The summary I gave here was because I felt it would informative to note these things because they exist to unusual degree. Reinforcing the preface of my post and its intent, this is not to say any of what I noted is per se wrong, in fact IMO it is not per se wrong. My own opinion is that it's just the "unusual degree" that raises some concerns and also creates a sub-optimal situation. Another disclaimer....due to my noted very limited participation on these, I don't have detailed knowledge about the potential editor interaction issues raised in this discussion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Kind of a weird deal, acknowledging they edit with a POV and admitting you would do the same if you were less lazy. Just to make clear to anyone, including admins or arbs, that really discounts your argument, especially the weird jab that you know North's POV. ~2026-39217-02 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

What an odd flex. And you are? Drmies (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Drmies What flex? Is pointing out flaws in your logic a flex now? No, it is not lol But I am Michael, why do you ask? Also is it not a bit hypocritical to ask given your recent comment? ~2026-39217-02 (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur entirely with Drmies. I am relatively neutral in personal opinion on firearms articles. I'm a non-American from a country with a lot of very well regulated civilian firearms and I find the rhethoric from south of the border from both sides of the debate pretty non-applicable in the rest of the world where we just regulate firearms. So then I see a well-sourced section about the use of drum magazines in mass shootings being kept out by what seems a lot of WP:STONEWALL masked as proceduralism. Lightbreather has the misfortune to be outnumbered here. But their behaviour is not any worse than many of the people they are editing contrary to. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it is considered stonewalling when everyone in a discussion disagrees with the point you make just because you like that point. I have not looked very deeply into the content dispute part of it, but it is good to remember that just because a source exists does not mean the content is due. ~2026-39217-02 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, but of course part of the responsibility you inheret as an editor is the obligation to do the mature thing and accept a result the community keep demonstrating is a WP:SNOW issue, rather than relitigating endlessly despit clear community consensus, by leveraging technicalities. I'd say a refusal to do that is basically WP:TEND after a certain point, and if I am reading the continuity of events here, they blew past that well before the close of the last WP:AfD. It is well-established community practice that an unambigous community determination should stand, irrespective of a discussion or process having been started in bad faith or by a party evadading a sanction. That this issue had to be re-settled over and over through so many discussions, including three separate AfD's despite such a clear result in each instance, is really silly and a waste of community/volunteer time. It's somewhat defensible in that that there were at least 2-4 months between the formal AfD attempts, but still this is a lot of energy expended around something that had repeatedly been established by consesus within one year. When you add in the wrinkles that this user is only relatively recently out from under a TBAN in this area, it is hard not to reach the conclusion that they should have know better and are failing to prioritize the good of the project over grinding the same old axe.

Now as you say, I am sure there is no shortage of editors bringing strong arm energy into this particular topic area, but they haven't recently been shown indulgence and trust of ArbCom in permitting a trial return to this area where they have prevously been found disruptive. This user has, and should be more at pains than anyone to avoid making the consensus formation process as tedious and needlessly attenuated as possible by being unable to "take the L" as the kids say today. However, I am confused as to why this has not been kicked back to WP:ARCA as was suggested by CaptainEek. In both procedural and strictly practial terms, that seems like the apporpriate approach in these circumstances. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I was pinged here from a user talk notice on LB's user talk page about this thread. Reading over the above I think WP:NOTADVOCATE applies. Perhaps in this case the firearm debate in the United States falls under WP:CT/AP?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I am leaving these comments from LB hear, separate from my analysis I'd like fellow editors to look at them strongly for themselves. But I will include my reasons as to how they apply. I will also acknowledge these may have already been alluded to by previous editors but I would like to emphasize that this behavior isn't a minor complaint or happening in a vacuum.

• User talk:~2026-34199-65#c-Lightbreather-20260629133200-Springee's conduct
• Talk:Republican Party (United States)#c-Lightbreather-20260629133600-~2026-34199-65-20260627225000
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#c-Lightbreather-20260711200200-Inclusion of crimes/shootings section in "Drum magazine" article
• Talk:Republican Party (United States)#c-Lightbreather-20260629134300-Springee-20260628001400

The fundamental issue at hand is that since Lightbreather being reintroduced to this topic fairly recently, they have almost exclusively locked in on behavior that makes collaboration toxic, painful, if not mentally harmful. LB has defied consensus on AFDs and talk pages on multiple occasions using a sockpuppet as an excuse to remove widely agreed upon edits. WP:Bludgeon has been used on multiple occasions like the drum magazine article where the current debate and consensus has been ignored. This has been followed by incorrectly used NPOVN and on a different occasion an WP:3O request which was denied. LB has engaged in WP:Canvassing by using the NPOVN, the republican party talk page, and an editor talk page to rally consensus in her direction or ire against another editor. This also ties into WP:CIV and WP:NPA have been crossed as LB has engaged in sarcastic and aggressive behavior upon disagreements.

These two policies have gone hand in hand with her violations of WP:DE as the republican party talk page has been used to cast aspersions by bringing up unsubstantiated claims for conflict of interest and bring up other unrelated talk page disputes. This combined with going to a user talk page to talk about another editor gives the impression of tag teaming at the very least. It worries me that simple disagreements will be aired on every venue possible whether appropriate or not and that editors are being actively recruited to help LB when she is losing consensus.

Finally, the ArbCom ban and topic ban combined with the "retirement" show an inability to handle this topic with care and grace. I'd like to move forward and through different topics without the worry my name will be dragged through the mud. I'd like any admin and future commentors to look at this thoroughly so there's a clear understanding of what's happening and the consequences of letting it continue.AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

AA. would you put some bullets on your list of links please? Then I can respond to your accusations. Lightbreather (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Your links are to discussions, not diffs. I'm especially interested to know where you think I canvassed. Lightbreather (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

These links take you right to your comments and have also have been provided by other commentators here. You can disagree with my conclusions about what you're saying, which is fine. But I clearly link to what you have said. Thank you AadamentAardvark (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

AdamentAardvark, did you just say that Lightbreather was using sockpuppets? Do you know how serious that accusation is? As far as I know there was only one sock in these discussions, and that was Iljhgtn, whose behavior inflamed a situation that might not have caught fire otherwise. Drmies (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

AadamentAardvark: courtesy edit to complete Drmies' ping. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

AA will answer for themselves, but I read "using a sockpuppet as an excuse to remove widely agreed upon edits" as a loose phrasing for saying that LB removed edits on the basis that a sockpuppet (lijhgtn) had made the edits. AA is saying that this should not have happened for "widely agreed upon edits". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

That appears to be the obvious read of AA's comment reading through the whole discussion. Drmies, you might want to strike that or perhaps hat this part. PackMecEng (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I read the same thing as well. Intothatdarkness 14:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes that's what I'm saying AadamentAardvark (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Refer to the comments below for the meaning of my comment. I am not and have not ever accused LB of using sockpuppet, nor do I think she is in any capacity. This is a wild misconstruing of my point AadamentAardvark (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@AadamentAardvark: Please give the actual DIFF where you think that I canvassed. You only provided links to discussions. Lightbreather (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

He can't IN SOLIDARITY/NO SCABS (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I was notified to take part in this discussion because I have been pinged by Lightbreather for the Talk:Magazine (firearms) page HCM section discussions since this past May. I’ll take the time to share a few of the things I’ve noticed lately about some talk page disputes where they seem to be focused on editors rather than article content.

• During a Talk:Republican Party, Lightbreather imported an unrelated dispute involving Springee from Talk:Magazine (firearms), writing that his conduct there "mirrors" his behavior into the current discussion, and later asked, "Do we have a conflict of interest here?" leading to other editors responding that she should refrain from “accusing fellow editors” of things like WP:COI when there is “no real evidence” and reminders to follow WP:FOC.

• Lightbreather recently opened a thread on another editor's user talk page, titled "Springee's conduct" and stated "I agree that S. has a behavior problem," and suggested, "feel free to use these diffs", prompting the talk page owner to reply, "I'd like to keep this from becoming a discussion of another editor's behaviour on my talk page". This resembles the type of conduct cautioned against under WP:CANVASS.

• On Talk:Magazine (firearms), Lightbreather opened a discussion directed at Springee’s statement and repeatedly demands that Springee "show us your sources" and "prove your claim." The pattern throughout the talk page feels like an WP:ICANTHEARYOU concern when repeatedly returning to the same points after they have been addressed.

I'll just end by saying that these recent examples of carrying disputes across multiple venues, shifting content discussions toward editors, continually repeating the same lines of argument after other editors have tried to refocus the discussion, may be relevant to the concerns described in WP:BLUDGEON and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm still not clear as to why requesting sources is inappropriate? Cheers. DN (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Requesting sources is fine. It's when they're presenting a weak source as some beacon of authority, demanding that other editors prove a negative; WP:SKYBLUE or provide a source that conclusively demonstrates their misinterpretation of their source is false (i.e. setting impossible standards). e.g. when they're writing that "high capacity magazines" are widely used in a particular sporting discipline (and this therefore demonstrates GNG) based on one throwaway line in a match report which is actually using "high capacity" to mean something different. Editors are apparently expected to find a source that explains (as if to a 5 year old) that Lightbreather's interpretation of the words "High capacity 1911" is referring to the firearm not to the magazine, and any attempt to point Lightbreather to the M1911 pistol article or explain this is dubbed WP:OR. Requesting sources is fine. "Lalala ICANTHEARYOU" crosses a line. Sources don't exist to specifically prove Lightbreather's wilful misinterpretation of innocuous phrases to support their POV-editing. I was willing to assume it was a (weirdly insistent) lack of domain knowledge until I read about the previous TBAN at which point it started to look a lot more deliberate. Hemmers (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Am I also "guilty" in that particular context, since I also requested to see the sources that they claimed? DN (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The November 2025 amendment to Lightbreather's topic ban that User:CaptainEek mentioned above seems very apropos to this overall discussion. From that discussion, User:Anastrophe noted, "These are some of the behaviors that contributed to the site ban, and based on a reading of recent activity there, haven't abated in the slightest. The requestor has not learned from past mistakes." My understanding of "some of the behaviors" that Anastrophe noted in that discussion included Lightbreather gossiping about other editors, being hyperfocused on one topic, being uncivil to other editors, and other behaviors contrary to policy. I think that what Anastrophe was talking about then is unfortunately just as true now as it was before. From what has been said above, there seems to be violations of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BLUD WP:CIVIL, WP:CANVASS, and potentially more policy violations that do not seem to stop regardless of what is done. I think either a block or an indefinite TBAN would be warranted here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you please reformat the text you placed in quotes? It's not a verbatim quote; there was no parenthetical in it. I understand you were summarizing the behaviors in your interpretation, however it's not clearly presented as being your summary/interpretation. At minimum, prepend in italics "Editor:" within the parenthetical text to set it off as not part of the quote. Personally, I would use square brackets on insertion of content that's not part of the quote; not sure if that's a convention or just my particular preference though. thanks. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

No problem, hold on, I will revise it and you can let me know what you think after. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Done, let me know what you think. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Rather than Lightbreather being the wrongdoer here, she seems more like the victim of a witch-hunt. She comes into articles attempting to revert the edits instituted by a group of sockpuppets by an editor whose sockpuppets were banned for POV-pushing, only to be met with incredible pushback. While in the numerical minority, she has worked to achieving consensus and has only been met with WP:STONEWALLING, WP:PA, WP:TAGTEAMING and other forms of WP:Disruptive editing. I can only commend her for remaining as calm as she has in the face of such a situation.Katzrockso (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  “Group of sockpuppets?” You either need to name at least 3 usernames, or strike that. Qwirkle (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I believe that is the definition, as in "multiple"...why 3? DN (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Do your really first think of “two” when someone talks about “a group?” Qwirkle (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Are we talking about parlance? I doubt every single editor follows the same exact definition, but far be it from me to speak for Katzrockso. I only wish they would fix their profile so their name would stop showing up in red ;-) Cheers. DN (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Qwirkle: I've asked this before, but you never properly replied. You have a second account,[36] but I don't see any mention of it on your user page. I think you also have an open topic ban,[37] though maybe I missed where it was lifted. I might have posted this on your talk page, but it says "Post No Bills"[38] and I think it might get deleted without an answer. Why is your second account undisclosed on your user page? Lightbreather (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Is there anyone else here who, having looked at my dust-up with Jytdog and Sans Courage, and glanced at a nearly unused legacy account, thinks this is at all relevant to a discussion about firearms?

  If so, I might answer them. Qwirkle (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Since this ANI is dissecting my behaviors, it seems looking at the behaviors of my accusers is relevant. Also, WP:ALTNOTIFY is policy. You're suggesting it's optional. Lightbreather (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The policy says it should be done not must be done. The account has 55 edits, with the last being 18 months ago. There is no attempt to conceal the connection and it's clear that it's used as an alternate watchlist. There's nothing falling foul of WP:SOCK there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  What it says is "Unless when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative registered accounts should provide links between the accounts."

  I'll press the point no further, but if I did this, there'd be people asking me about it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  X should be done unless Y is functionally different than X must be done unless y. Some policies make strong suggestions or provide best practices without that being set in stone. You can see both the red line language and the best practices language WP:BLP, e.g. Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. Material challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced. When it is not it should be removed.
  No one is getting blocked for not removing unsourced BLP content they see, and no one is getting sanctioned for having an alternate account that isn't being used to violate WP:SOCK. Their alternate account has no bearing on this discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  BTW I am dealing with similar issues at multiple articles, all started by User:Iljhgtn. DN (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  "[...]all started by User:Iljhgtn." Proximately, or consequent to editor in question engaging their campaign to "clean up" after Ilhjgtn in the aftermath of that user's block/ban as a sock? cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  "She comes into articles attempting to revert the edits instituted by a group of sockpuppets by an editor whose sockpuppets were banned for POV-pushing, only to be met with incredible pushback."

  Sorry, which sockpuppets are you talking about? I'm not a sockpuppet. Are you accusing Springee of being a sock? Yes, certain articles had AfDs proposed by a sock (Ilhjgtn) who was subsequently banned. But those AfDs were fairly discussed and the changes met with consensus. The fact Lightbreather has then bold reverted in defiance of consensus in Talk, which have then gone back to AfD and reaffirmed the initial consensus (which Lightbreather still doesn't want to accept) only highlights Lightbreather's POV and ICANTHEARYOU conduct. It's no secret that firearms-related articles suffer from enormous sprawl, WP:GLOBALIZE and WP:NOTGUIDE issues (because... America). It's inevitable that various topics are going to stand mergers and consolidation over time. And sure, others will be split. None of this is POV. Hemmers (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you have your timeline and facts straight and, again, no diffs. (Not links to discussions, but actual diffs.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• It's pretty inevitable that LB was going to be ganged up against and bullied by gun advocacy editors, once she misguidedly stepped back into that topic area. She was wearing a bullseye on her back from the start, so to speak. I'd advise closing this with no futher action, personally. Topic ban LB out of gun articles, maybe. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Lightbreather TBAN on gun control

There was some discussion earlier about taking this matter to WP:ARCA or WP:AE for resolution, as the simplest path may have been to re-implement the ArbCom TBAN made as part of a package of sanctions in Lightbreather's 2015 ArbCom case, which was rescinded by ArbCom motion in November 2025. However, no one with knowledge of the scope of the current purported disruption has stepped forward to make that request, and this discussion has definitely raised colourable claims that LB's return to this area has involved considerable disruption. Since no alternative resolution is forthcoming despite those concerns, and as the community is able to apply a TBAN of its own, I'm proposing that as the solution. Please !vote or comment on this proposed wording: Lightbreather is indefinitely topic banned from issues regarding gun control, broadly construed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I know you're preparing a note, but in the meantime, is it possible to close the discussion pending an outcome? Please. It's been eight days and there are already 35 (I think) !votes. That seems like plenty for the closer to consider and I'm pretty stressed out. Lightbreather (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support. I am convinced by the scope of the evidence here, presented by numerous parties, that there have been substantial impacts and disruption in a number of discussions owing to LBs approach, which at a minimum demonstrates a lack of collaborative effort and willingness to accept consensus and may in fact constitute abuse of process. I expect an editor recently returned to an area they have previously displayed problematic behaviour so severe that it required five separate sanctions to restrain to exercise the highest level of conduct and restraint to demonstrate that the statements that they made when getting the sanctions rescinded, that they understand the impacts of their previous behaviour, are accurate. Here though, we seem to have an aggressive return to tendentious tactics. And in fact, I note that the ground upon which these battles are playing out and the manner in which they are being approached bear substantial resemblance to the circumstances that led to ArbCom's TBAN: see in particular the Committee's findings here and here. Further, I note that the ArbCom's TBAN was not the first for LB on this subject matter, as admins at AE had previously imposed a six month ban in 2014.
  As others have noted here, and as one would expect given the divisiveness of the gun control issue even as compared to other USPOL subjectmatter, not every aspect of the present issues are of Lightbreather's making. But even giving a detailed look at that context, I believe LB's particular behaviour in this area continues to be a source of significant enough disruption to make them a net negative to complicated and already demanding editorial and consensus work on the topic, and that HJ Mitchell's dissent on the amendment motion has proven portentous. Respectfully, the fact that this area does and always will include bad actors of various sorts cannot be used to excuse all of the questionable conduct presented here. Indeed, it is just one more reason why we need this topic to be covered by editors with a scrupulous approach. With regret, I feel we have seen enough to act. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  there have been substantial impacts and disruption in a number of discussions owing to LBs approach, which at a minimum demonstrates a lack of collaborative effort and willingness to accept consensus and may in fact constitute abuse of process...Are there diffs that support this that may also be put into context? I clicked on the committee finding and realized they were about a decade ago, roughly. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm also not convinced that linking an ArbCom case from 12 years ago support this current proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm convinced that linking to the ArbCom case from twelve years ago is directly relevant to this proposal. Same editor. Same patterns. Same disruptions. Historical perspective matters. I believe all formal actions from before and after the site ban are relevant to this matter. The outcome of the recission of the site ban - with restrictions - was several years of LB productively editing the encyclopedia without conflict.

  The outcome of the recission of the 'gun control' topic ban was inevitable. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I very clearly labelled the timing of each previous community or administrative/Committee intervention and sanction. There's no effort to hide the ball here. Each respondent can interpret that context as they wish. For my part, I think of this in another light; it is only seven months since the ban was rescinded and already we are seeing an approach with striking overlaps on both very specific topics and approach. In my view, that makes it hardly a point Lightbreather's favour that the original conduct occured 12 years ago. Quite the contrary, it makes it appear as if their well-documented restraint problem in this area is fundamental to their approach to the subject matter. Personally, I think we are giving them more of the benefit of the doubt here than ArbCom. That case concluded with six sanctions, including a suspended site ban and a (still in effect) 1RR restriction.

  Honestly, I expect to shortly be hearing from the other side of aisle that the proposal is not strong enough, butI lean towards the most constrained solution that I think will address the largest issues, and try to preserve the editor. And even those who think that LBs conduct should be considered in the light of any provocation might consider that this is as much an off-ramp for them as anything else. Anybody could have taken this matter to ARCA at their discretion, and in that forum, all of the previous sanctions would be back on the table. It doesn't mystify me that LB has defenders in these circumstances: that is not an inherently unthinkable position. But I think even their defenders should be honest that this situation is substantially of their making all the same. When considering the limited means by which we might thread the needle between protecting a CTOP from disruption while also avoiding an overzealous counter-reaction, this proposal has merit.

  Anyone is of course free to disagree. But I believe it is a misstatement of the circumstances to say that the argument for a TBAN is based on stale evidence. There are in fact quite a few editors above who have demonstrated otherwise. The fact that the issues stretch back to the horizon does not change that, nor does it put the problem in a particularly more positive light. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I clicked on the committee finding and realized they were about a decade ago, roughly.

  It goes back to 2022 because in the 2025 amendment request Lightbreather pointed ArbCom back to their own 2022 "Dear community" statement: First, I won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages… and said they had: I have abided by my restrictions and behaved as promised. So, it's relevant now because this discussion is about whether their conduct since the topic ban was lifted is consistent with what they told ArbCom when asking to have the remaining sanctions removed. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have stated repeatedly, on several talk pages, exactly why I tried to undo high-capacity magazine "merges" by Iljhgtn (after I learned he was a sockpuppet). Here is one: "I don't plan to work on gun articles, but this one hit my radar because that sockpuppet, Iljhgtn, put an AfD notification on my talk page both times he tried to get it deleted."[39] And I will be outta here on gun articles once the dust settles on this. Lightbreather (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support. No love of the Repub Party here, but neither pro nor anti on gun issues. Instead, prefer a fact-based encyclopedic reference. LB refuses to behave in a civil manner, and should therefore be excluded from the discussion. Save the rockfights for Facebook. Blubberypancakes (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Blubberypancakes
• Oppose I'm simply not seeing the sort of one-sided disruption that would justify a topic-ban. Loki (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why does it need to be one sided? If the other side is a problem, start a tread on them as well. PackMecEng (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Not enough to justify a topic ban? This editor was already banned for the same beahvior in 2015, then given a second chance and is now back to the exact same behavior.Guz13 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The so-called evidence provided above says more about the editors posting it than it does about Lightbreather. Katzrockso (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. [Grandstanding-free zone.] cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Anastrophe, @Katzrockso (and anyone else I’ve missed), btw you're involved, community-imposed sanctions are supposed to only be !voted on by uninvolved editors (WP:CBAN), but this is never enforced. Just at the very least disclose that you’re involved Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  From CBAN: "Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response." I would appreciate this @Snow Rise: It would be nice if the closer could easily see who is involved and who is uninvolved. And for my comments not to get lost amongst the other posts. Lightbreather (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm, I've never seen that actually utilized in a CBAN discussion anywhere on the project, but I note the verbiage has been in the policy for a very long time, and I don't see any negative trade-off giving reason to object.

  The only problem is, with the discussion already under way, I don't want to be chopping up the thread, moving comments out of context and without position and refactoring. How about we do this: well before the thread closes, I will add a bolded note after the proposal prompt noting which users were involved in the underlying disputes. I will use a generous definition of involved, to include anyone !voting who was on the opposite side of a dispute in a TP discussion mentioned here. Would that work for you? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  "community-imposed sanctions are supposed to only be !voted on by uninvolved editors (WP:CBAN), but this is never enforced."

  Regardless of the outcome, this will be wikilawyered into oblivion because a policy is in place and isn't being followed - failure to enforce only makes it about as (judicially) ripe as it gets. This proposal should be closed and mooted, and restarted fully conformant to the rules. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I will leave a nondescript, unlinked list of names on your talk page of whom I think is involved and you can take or leave them as you wish. Lightbreather (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Why I don't see that happening. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• I just don't see how that can be feasibly be done at this juncture. Respectfully, I don't think you have thought through what that would consist of. I can't just wave a wand and wish away the existence of the already existing !votes. Even if I created a second prompt (which would be a really weird way to try to address LB's concern), the previous comments would still be there for consideration by the closer and in their original format.

  And refactoring is a non-starter. First, you would have to abduce the involved status of every user who has already commented here, requiring a census of each thread linked to in all the forgoing discussion, and cross reference all of the couple of dozen editors against each such thread. Which, fine--this part will have to be done to meet LB's request at all. I'll do that--that will take me around an hour and half, maybe a little longer? I can do that as a matter of courtesy to a fellow community member who asked politely, despite the fact that I am the one who made the proposal.

  So, fine now you have your list of involved and uninvolved. Nevermind for the moment that there is going to be universal disagreement with every name you put in the involved list, and that's soon going to create yet more sprawling meta discussion that isn't really serving to do anything but bloat the page, slow consensus and further inflame/polarize perspectives. You've got a more immediate problem: Now you have to edit the busiest and most closely watched page on the project to meticulously rearrange dozens of posts per those categorizations, while trying not to damage the flow of the discussion beyond recognition (impossible, probably), or create situations where you cause someone's comments to be read without appropriate context.

  If you tried to do all of that in one edit, there would be new edits by the time you got done that would likely complicate what the whole result. If you did it in a sequence of edits, you would be fighting constant edit conflicts, while creating many more for every user trying to edit ANI, in addition to direct conflicts with changes in this discussion. And that's assuming that someone didn't revert your first edits immediately. Which, someone certainly would, because none of this is consistent with TPG or how existing threads are meant to be edited.

  I could keep going with the technical hurdles, but I think I've made my point. The best I personally can do for you is create a list of involved parties for the closer to consider. In terms of impacting the ultimate outcome, I think it will have roughly the same influence as a hamster's fart in a hurricane, understand. But what the hell--I make pro forma arguments here on occasion; I can do my best to accommodate this one.

  At the same time, let me be real with both of you for a moment. None of this is normal process. Remotely. This is just never done. What do I mean by never? Well I can tell you that you are talking to someone who has reviewed ANI a few times a week, most weeks, for the last 15 years. I can't imagine I have seen anything less than a thousand cban discussions in that time. And I can't recall a single time that I saw one organized in the fashion that is being sought here. There may be a worthwhile arguments about the benefits of such an organization, but it is not established practice in the community and no one has a right to expect it. Even the policy language in question says "May"; it is explicitly non-mandatory.

  So, I would submit to both of you that anyone who tried to overturn a consensus decision on the CBAN (either way) by appealing to such a technicality could very well create a rapid unwinding of remaining patience and WP:ROPE from the community. I'm going out of my way to do whatever can be done to try to avoid that outcome, because it would be the worst possible version of how things could play out from here. But I'm one editor and won't be able to stop the knock-on effects if that broader community patience level does in fact get worn down by pedantic arguments about procedural dicta regarding fully discretionary options in organization that have never been exercised in the history of community ban discussions, that I am aware. Considering the format here is fully consistent with the norm for such discussions, issues with the format are unlikely to be perceived as serious enough a problem to overturn a clear consensus, if there is one.

  Of course, if either you two wants to try refactoring the discussion, I'm not going to stop you. But I think that any such experiment is likely to come to an end in five minutes with half of the present populace of ANI pissed off at the experimenter. Personally, I think a list of involved parties, combined with LB having their own section, addresses most of the concerns raised anyway. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't even know if I'm allowed to respond within this collapsed narrative, or if a response is okay but should be outside the collapsed narrative. Based on what you wrote, you are intimately - excruciatingly - familiar with these processes.

I think what I wrote was misconstrued. Based on what had been written by Kowal2701, my vote is moot, because I'm involved. But restricting voting by involved editors has never been enforced. So my vote can stand...? But identified as not-a-vote-to-be-counted. Or does my vote count, because the process has never really cared about involved editor's voting or not. It strikes me as a loophole ready to be exploited, and in my blunt manner, I've a feeling I know who would exploit it, if the vote went against the-editor-subject-to-the-proposal. So all I see coming of this a future, epic adventure once again into the bowels of a bureaucracy that I've no appetite for. So, I expressed my opinion about 'do it over' in that light. I have no control of the process, obviously, if it's untenable to 'undo', then that is that.

I presume from what I understood of your narrative that you are 'in charge' of this particular 'litigation'. So it seems it's entirely up to you what becomes of it. You say a challenge of the vote would not fly. I will take your word for it.

My only question is...should I strike through my vote? Should I change it to "moot", or "NOTAVOTE"? Should I delete my vote? Should I just leave it untouched, since it would seem everyone materially involved would know the status of my vote (other than me, at this point), so why bother? Sigh. I think I'll go whack my thumb with a hammer. Over and over. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Re what Snow Rise hatted: All I'm asking is that involved parties' votes are tagged/flagged. Surely it is easily determined that Springee, Anastrophe, Qwirkle, and AadamentAardvark were very involved in the discussions in question. Several other editors contributed to the discussions in great length. Whomever closes this should have the info. It doesn't require starting over, just tagging/flagging a half-dozen or so votes. Why is it wikilawyering when I give policies, but not when others do? Why is it ROPE of me to ask that POLICY be adhered to when it's my neck on the line? Lightbreather (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The person closing it will have that info. You've mentioned it and the closer will read the entire discussion and linked diffs and discussions as part of the close. Although the CBAN policy says discussions may be organized in that way it isn't required and is very rarely done. It is expected that the closer will appropriately weigh involved and uninvolved comments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

If this is always true, I am sincerely relieved. Because I get tired of having WP:essays thrown at me without diffs. I get tired of following and citing policy, and being accused of wikilawyering. ALTACCOUNT is optional. DIFFs are optional. CBAN is optional. One can see how an editor in a contentious topic area could easily be WP:POVRAILROADed when it boils down to he-said/she-said when she is outnumbered six-to-one or more. Lightbreather (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The evidence for a topic ban is insufficient and this really looks like an attempt by involved editors in a relatively low-engagement article set to remove an inconvenient interlocutor. Simonm223 (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have to agree with Simonm223 and Loki here. TarnishedPath^talk 09:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - LB uses sources by the rules and has come under attack because she is an easy target with a view contrary to that of a majority of editors in this subject area. No further action is needed. Carrite (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like pretty clear cut so-called evidence of disruption right after coming off a big sanction. If you are consistently going against consensus, aka the majority of editors in a subject area, you are creating disruption. Liking the pov they are pushing is no excuse. PackMecEng (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Correlation is not causation. Or rather, the existence of disruption in a topic area doesn't mean that some particular editor is being disruptive. I say this from experience, as someone who participated in the trans healthcare topic area back when it was a trashfire. It's important to distinguish "this seems like a lot of heat" from "Lightbreather is the one at fault for setting this page on fire".

  If Lightbreather is citing sources correctly, etc etc, and the people she's arguing with aren't (I don't know whether this is the case or not for sure but I do think it's a reasonable possibility), it would be them being disruptive and not her. If everyone is following policy and just disagreeing there's no disruption; this is just a contentious content dispute. The existence of a lot of disagreement on a page after Lightbreather was unbanned is nowhere near enough to say that Lightbreather is being disruptive. Loki (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is a flawed interpretation of disruption that makes an incorrect exception for if you feel they are right. Also looking at the so-called evidence, its fairly clear the disruption is NOT just I disagree but here are sourced. Its going against consensus multiple times and places, badgering, and overall bludgeoning a topic area they were recently found to be majorly disruptive in and blocked from. I appreciate your anecdotal experience on similar subjects but it is not relatable here or anywhere really, since it's easily counted with well my experience is different. What counts here is policy, which again, does not make an exception for being right. PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  If the basis for disruption is one of policy, is it irrelevant as to which view/interpretation of policy is being misapplied (if policy is indeed being violated/ignored)? Cheers. DN (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Going against the majority (even if that majority is overwhelming) is not the same as "going against consensus". We have policy which defines what consensus is for our purposes (see WP:CON). TarnishedPath^talk 00:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  In this case it was the majority AND consensus. As is usually the case. PackMecEng (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you provide specific examples of the edits made that went against consensus, including a link to the consensus in question? Katzrockso (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng I will reiterate my request for the edits in question. Katzrockso (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, didn't see your message. They are linked above by others. PackMecEng (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support I appreciate that SnowRise is proposing a restrained remedy here. Since the disruptions being communicated in the discussions above happened soon after the old ArbCon sanctions were lifted, a TBAN seems like the smallest step to try to solve the problem. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support All parties would be better off with a topic ban in place, per Snowrise. If there had never been a previous sanction, I'd probably be on the warning/oppose side, but there's a lower bar here considering the past disruptive conduct in this topic area. It's not part of the reason I support, but I'd be absolutely miffed if I were an ArbCom member who heard LB's appeal given the bait and switch present here. I'd be curious to hear the opinion of ArbCom members from that appeal if they were inclined to accept if the appeal had been "I intend to edit nearly exclusively in gun control, and engage in WWI-style trench edit warfare on a few specific topics in gun control." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  And, since sanctions are forward looking, I expect that if there is no topic ban, we'll have this whole dog-and-pony show on this for the umpteenth time. Short of a topic ban, I have little expectation that this won't end up another dreary ArbCom case, that will end up worse for everyone involved, including LB. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Are you proposing topic bans against @Anastrophe, @Thebiguglyalien and @Springee? Because, if the argument is that the whole conversation is disruptive, that's a very different discussion than the one we've been having. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Warnings for them would be fine, and I would support a warning for several of them if proposed. But Lightbreather is the one with an extensive history of extremely disruptive conduct and battleground behavior in this topic area so egregious that it resulted in significant sanctions. Lightbreather's history of being able to cope with people with strong disagreements is like a mid-2010s ArbCom index, and this appears to indicate that nothing has changed. I have no issue with people who oppose the sanction, but don't act all surprised when we have to do the exact same thing in a month or three months or six months down the road, but far messier. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  See I would support a logged warning for Lightbreather if the other parties involved in this dispute received the same. I would not support a harsher response for Lightbreather than the others. Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The same response *is* a harsher response for the others, as they don't have the same history. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Markup! I knew you were AI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I guarantee that if AI made nearly as many grammar stupidities as I do, they'd have canned the whole idea years ago! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  "But Lightbreather is the one with an extensive history of extremely disruptive conduct and battleground behavior..." I'm out with my granddaughter for awhile, but when I return I'll address this. Lightbreather (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  What did I do? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'll note that I saw the off-site discussion on Wikipediocracy, too, and I see nothing that resembles canvassing. Yes, the particular participants in the thread are inclined to support LB's position, but I don't get any impression that the discussion is there to drive oppose votes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just to help organize, I would be happy to see this in ArbCom as an alternative, since consensus doesn't seem to be coalescing around anything at all and this is a messy topic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with jumping over to ARBCOM before this ANI thread has been assessed and closed by a closer. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, because it is blatantly obvious that Lightbreather isn't the only person engaging in disruptive behaviour, if she actually is at all. The 'consensus' she has argued against consists largely of the same gang that has stonewalled and obstructed every discussion of firearms-related issues for decades, in order to promote the views of the US gun lobby, and to ensure that any article on what should be a global topic is dominated by the narrow confines of US discourse on the topic. This is supposed to be a global project, not a forum for the promotion of gun sales. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I tend to empathize as a longtime contributor within particular areas of this broad subject. I would agree that the economic and political aspects tend to blur how editors try to interpret and apply policy, especially those that carry inherently Western democratic views on gun politics. The vast majority of these are located in Western Europe, with the US leading the main divergence due to a percentage of those considered to promote unrestrictive gun rights. Editors in these topic areas, including myself, are prone to the frustration of seeing sources representing "both sides" without considering the rest of world. DN (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I know I struggled with these kind of sentiments. I delayed making the proposal nearly a day after it first felt to me that it was the only way to resolve the discussion, because I didn't feel happy about it. I don't want to make a proposal that could remove a reliable voice against gun lobby shills or SPAs pushing a 2nd amendment absolutism POV. But for me this was the least bad option. And it's not just that I think the rules need to be applied equally to all editors and that in a behavioural discussion, we should check our personal perspectives on the underlying subject matter, though I do believe in both those principles.

  Rather, the main point I would emphasize instead is that when an editor regularly loses deploys tendentious tactics, it kind of doesn't matter which way they are pushing on the content. Because the resulting disruption always benefits pro-gun SPAs. Why? Because under normal circumstances these parties are always working at a disadvantage when it comes to the corpus of academic and empirical sourcing. Experienced, neutral editors can use this as a fundamental backstop when dealing with SPAs or other POV-inclined editors seeking to skew content in an undue manner.

  Provided that everyone stays unflappable enough not to cooperate in muddying the waters with other issues. An editor who comes out swinging every time, determined to fight fire with napalm...they can be net negatives even if they bring substantial knowledge and dedication to the topic. I wrote a much larger version of this paragraph originally, but the truth is I don't think LB (or the discussion) will benefit from another post enumerating perceived issues. Suffice it to say, I think they run far too hot on this topic. Whether that is a reflection of their feelings about the underlying subject matter, or an artifact of their previous hisotory in this area, I would not want to speculate. Some of each would be understandable, certainly. I just think they need to take their passion to another place that doesn't bring them to a full head of steam quite so instantly and constantly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support sadly. I think if Lightbreather had taken one of many opportunities here to self-reflect rather than reflect on others' behaviour, it would be different. The problem is there are multiple issues. Some are interpersonal: LB and Anastrophe - based on what's happened here and some of the linked discussions - just shouldn't be interacting, though seeing only the last few weeks of a fairly epic history, I wouldn't comment on whether that should be 1-way or 2-way. Some are to do with the content area. What I'd seen up till now (which included aspersions, a healthy dose of battleground behaviour, very frequent lapses in WP:FOC, and not a whole lot of WP:AGF) wouldn't have convinced me all the way to a TBAN, but I was pretty convinced by Hemmers' summary to show that the topic area disruption does reach that level.
  When confronted with the evidence of all this, I've mainly seen LB turn the focus onto other editors. To paraphrase, "If I'm bludgeoning then he's bludgeoning"[40], or "That was only because the other bad editors were disruptive first".[41] If Lightbreather took the concerns seriously, she might have suggested how she'll change her editing going forward in light of what ws raised here. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Request As Kowal2701 pointed out earlier, WP:CBAN says: "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may impose a time-limited or indefinite topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction(s) via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. Unambiguously-involved !votes may be tagged as such. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made."
  It also says: "Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response." I would appreciate this. It would be nice if the closer could easily see who is involved and who is uninvolved. And for my comments not to get lost amongst the other posts. Lightbreather (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support I've cited comments above of LB escalating fights and casting aspersions against Springree and others. Further I would invite you to check out her talk page where her and another editor tag team and cast aspersions that I was stalking her because I mentioned that I got a notification for a thread I was tagged in. I had to be backed up by four different editors before they let up. This kind of angst and behavior makes certain elements of this cite exhausting and it should not be that way. WP:DE does not just apply to edits themselves but it applies to the comments, insinuations, attacks against other editors when they are in the opposition. AadamentAardvark (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support I first noticed Lightbreather on the Talk:Republican Party (United States) page. Several discussions were going on across different sections unrelated to this topic ban discussion. Lightbreather and another editor began accusing a third editor of bad faith and other disparaging remarks that are related to this topic ban discussion WP:UNCIVIL. The accusations had nothing to do with the the Republican Party discussion, causing confusion, and were disruptive,[42][43] resulting in the topic being discussed getting derailed. After seeing this discussion about lightbreather on the noticeboard I thought it important that I add my comments about their disruptive actions spilling over to unrelated talk pages. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Unless I'm missing something, the first diff you link has nothing to do with gun control. How does that support a TBAN from gun control? TarnishedPath^talk 01:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I was pinged to that talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  What I listed happened on the Republican party talk page, but it was a spill over of this gun control article fallout. It made no sense at the time when I saw it over there, but now it does. You can see by what the other editors are listing in the diffs that lightbreather was on numerous pages about this issue and other issues. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I. WAS. PINGED. TO. THAT. TALK. PAGE. Lightbreather (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I was responding to TarnishedPath and never saw your previous comment because you added it while I was typing. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Considering your own comportment in that page @Dd3r1n0 I would suggest you want to avoid leaning into this line of discussion too much. [44] Simonm223 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support The trawling down below is uninspiring, many of the cited diffs bear little relation to gun politics, and Springee is not (and cannot) be involved in this discussion.
  I do agree that the ArbCom case isn't of much relevance here, since the sanctions have already been successfully appealed. However, looking at the post-appeal period, there simply hasn't been an editing history between the appeal and the plunge back into personalized disputes within the topic area. If this is all about the sockpuppet Iljhgtn, I think that they've stopped being of relevance long ago, looking at some of the recently edited articles by LB. [45] [46] [47] Stikkyy (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose There's a reason why gun articles are a CT. Some of what is shown above could be seen as low level incivility and battlegrounding but I'm seeing enough to think that this isn't exclusive to LB. If people really think that sanctions are required for "peaceful" editing in the area then the wider context should be looked at. Also, what seems to be the main the inciting incident is related to long standing differences of opinion regarding how to handle historic discussions that a involve socks. Given the amount of non-sock editors who contributed to that consensus I don't see the need to reset, but I know others feel differently. Scribolt (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions on Lightbreather or if they were to be sanctioned they should be sanctioned along with others (or sanction everybody like what CoffeeCrumbs proposed). If Lightbreather’s behavior is actually subpar, then by that same standard the other parties would be guilty. It just seems like one against many causing the one to get irritated and frustrated against the many that oppose change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-40220-54 (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  The difference is one has a logged history in this topic area of containing in a sub par fashion and the others do not. With that, would you think they should all get the same sanction and what would they be? PackMecEng (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  That isn't entirely true, as has already been pointed out. See [48], where another involved contributor (North8000) was indefinitely site banned by ArbCom (ban subsequently lifted). AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at the discussions and talk pages in question I dont see North being an issue. So not sure why it would matter they have a past sanctions? Could you elaborate? PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Because North8000 and I have a past and it's not clear he can be impartial in this discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, if you didn't think that past 'sub par fashion' behaviour was relevant, why did you bring it up? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  ATG, I didn't bring it up. Unprompted, replying to my comment about how only the one person that is causing disruption in the topic area has prior sanctions in that topic area, you drop someone unrelated to say they have past sanctions as well. Which makes no damn sense, and why I asked you to clarify wtf you are talking about. Which, I will point out you still have not done. So to wrap up, your comment about North is weird and off topic and seems unrelated to this discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  This account has one lone edit on wikipedia: this vote. Today. I would strongly argue that this is likely a form of socking. All other voters here are members of the community, actively engaged in building an encyclopedia, here for some time, and with meaningful edit histories. An account with zero history just "happens" to come across a TBAN proposal and just happens to have read the discussion and evidence (or lack thereof) and just happens to feel inclined to tender a vote?

  No, not tenable, not believable. In all likelihood, the owner/user is a member of the community, but using underhanded tactics to manipulate a vote. And while I'm quite sure not a soul will believe me, I'd have the same complaint if the vote were the other way. Manipulating votes is unethical. I have no tolerance for underhanded behavior.

  Unfortunately, I had a look at the ban policy, and it doesn't address this. Nor do I have any way to prove this. But a single edit temporary account is not a 'member of the community', and the vote should not count. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Either present evidence that the TA is sockpuppetting or strike your comments. TAs are members of the community, just like editors with permanent accounts and permitted to edit here and participate in these discussions without involved editors casting aspersions against them and trying to disqualify them.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  TAs change frequently (that's the T of TA), and there are many active editors who have chosen not to make an account. It's convenient if someone wants to evade scrutiny of their edit history, but it's not guaranteed to be WP:LOUTSOCK or even bad faith. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies, but these arguments look like WP:BADFAITH and maybe out of place. Consider the context here, LB is recently brought here accused of being disruptive in discussions with editors, such as yourself, and or otherwise violating the terms of her sanctions, even mentions going ten years back. Still, I don't recall diffs being presented as proof of violation (links if anyone has them?). Then we see comments like this and we are supposed to either silently nod our heads or risk getting mixed in with the drama and potentially getting called out ourselves. To clarify, it's becoming difficult for me to navigate this thread and steward my own levels of hypocrisy. I wish no one the wrath of arbcom. Part of the reasons I try to avoid ANI discussions is because they simply begin to become a free-for-all, just like on article talk pages. If there are double standards being applied here it is a shame not to acknowledge them. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support As I stated in my above comment, there seem to be persistent violations of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BLUD, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CANVASS, all of which occurred after Lightbreather's topic ban was lifted. Generally, disruptive behavior following the lifting of a topic ban (or any sanction for that matter) is supposed to cease or at least improve, in this case it has either stayed the same as before the topic ban or even arguably gotten worse. Therefore, I think an indefinite topic ban is the appropriate sanction here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Katzrockso, AndyTheGrump, Simonm223. The only actions I think would be acceptable is a firm warning to all 3 main parties, and possibly a longer look into the other involved editors. Hooples (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support What stuck out to me the most was her behavior on her personal talk pages showcased here--titled "Reply to Anastrophe's latest sermon" [[49]] and here titled "Firearms 1RR":[[50]]. In both instances the editor in question displays behavior that I would deem WP:UNCIVIL. Additionally when looking at the page statistics of the Magazine (firearms) page here: [[51]] it is clear that this editor has risks to WP:OWN the edits on the page for quite sometime regularly ranking as the number 1 or number 2 editor on the page which indicates a need to dominate the article's edits and content. Lightbreather per the edit history on the Magazine (firearms) appears to have returned to editing material related to guns after the User:Iljhgtn was banned from the site for being a sockpuppet but appears to then go overboard and has edited the page in an aggressive manner that on occasion has violated WP:BRD as well as WP:IDONTHEARYOU with these two diffs regarding disputes about merged content: [[52]] and [[53]] where it appears she ignores consensus and instead wants to repeatedly force her own version of content into the article. Additionally the behavior on the talk page including this post titled "Apologies" where she left this comment: I am sorry I wasted everyone's time. Especially Anastrophe, who got so agitated he felt it necessary to shame me on this article talk page. He had no choice but to violate WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE policy and sully his spotless behavior record. whole post can be read here: [[54]] which also may be construed as WP:BATTLEGROUND in addition to not coming off as an editor who is truly apologetic for past behavior, but instead comes off as sarcastic and acting in bad faith. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  It was sarcastic and I apologized earlier.[55] Also, I hope readers have noted Anastrophe's (and others') "battleground" and sarcasm when they read these discussions (or in some cases, incomplete discussions). Lightbreather (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  (written apparently simultaneously with LB's reply) I would only interject to point out, if it wasn't blatantly obvious, I was equally if not more uncivil in the discussion proximate to 'Reply to Anastrophe's latest sermon'. My behavior elsewhere was also disruptive. My behavior however is not explicitly at play; it's ancillary to the proposal, though sanctions on me may be consequent. However I felt in all fairness it's appropriate to acknowledge that civility was wanting from both of us. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Something needs to be done to mitigate the problem and this is the only proposed measure. Also the immense whataboutism construction about another editor below here I find to be indicative. North8000 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  The large whataboutism construction on the two editors below includes several diffs that are 18 or 19 years old, again IMO indicative. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Simonm223. Grandpallama (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support I have hhad to deal with WP:BLUDGEON when discussing gun-related topics with Lightbreather. I have also been tagged in places months later for conversations that have already been finished, specifically on "high capacity magazines". I have had gun-related discussions with Lightbreather which never made sense to me, particuraly on the Ruger 10/22, see diff. Guz13 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  How exactly does that diff show any mischief? TarnishedPath^talk 23:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it does. It just seems to demonstrate a difference of opinion. If that were grounds for a topic ban, then I don't think any controversial topic would have any editors whatsoever.

  For what it's worth, the citation does support the claim Lightbreather made:

  Aftermarket accessories for the very popular Ruger 10/22 self-loading carbine undoubtedly stirred more money-making innovations among independent manufacturers than any other models ever produced in the American market. Hi-capacity magazines for this gun became the hottest selling item to date followed by folding stocks and dress up kits

  Katzrockso (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  In that whole discussion (Talk:Magazine (firearms)#Inclusion of 10/22 material in HCM section of article), there has been 16 comments to date and Lightbreather has made 5 of those comments. Guz linked that diff in relation to their allegation of BLUDGEON. While it looks like Lightbreather has commented more than others in that particular discussion, and they could probably do with leaving it at that, it's not what I would call BLUDGEON. TarnishedPath^talk 23:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Lightbreather has 96 comments on that page, the most of any editor. That is WP:Bludgeon. And they specifically reply to "high capacity magazine" issues to an unhealthy degree.

  Lightbreather wrote "Some might call it the beginning of the large-scale production of civilian HCMs". That is not supported by the sources. The quote you pulled, shows a magazine accesory for a single gun being a hot-selling item. It does not show that is is a historic moment in the history of maagaizine sales or anything of the sort. Guz13 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Lightbreather has 96 comments on that page, the most of any editor ~ Guz13

  Springee has 89. Is that WP:BLUDGEON? Lightbreather (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support full topic ban for gun topics, broadly construed, as the only way to stop them from wasting so much time and effort of other editors. A WP:CBAN here would be the best way to stop the disruptive editing by this person for this topic. Does Lightbreather also not have any limit for how much they can comment in this thread? They've already made a very large number of posts and accusations against others and appear to be WP:BLUDGEON-ing here too. Can we get a word count? Number of comments alone does not cover the issues as much as word count and the hostility towards consensus and working together with civility. Staticspector (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  You won't find it recorded in any PAG of which I am aware, but there's a principle that is generally followed in bahevioural threads at AN/I--and especially when sanctions are on the table--wherein the usual presumption of reasonable brevity in number and length of responses is relaxed a bit for the party against whom action is sought. Mind you, I don't think LB's choice of how to implement that prerogative has done them many favours, in the aggregate. I think both the sheer amount of responses and the general one-directional view on the blame between them and their opponents, is a mistake. But in terms of whether they should be permitted such a volume of response, I see no problem with that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  +1 TarnishedPath^talk 09:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Per AndytheGrump and Carrite, LB isn't the main problem here. It would be useful for some of those active on these topics and advocating for the topic ban of this clearly inconvenient editor to reflect on the fact that they themselves are also the ones contributing to the walled POV garden that many of these articles have become. Black Kite (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose as too one-sided. Jessintime (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  We could purpose sanctions on others involved. Where would you start? PackMecEng (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Bludgeon much? Jessintime (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  No. What a weird thing to say. PackMecEng (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I will note that you have asked multiple editors who are opposed to sanctioning Lightbreather in this discussion about what sanctions that they want to propose while you yourself are supporting sanctions. (Personally, I don't think you have met the definition for bludgeoning, but can see where it is coming from.) --Super Goku V (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yup, I asked R3YBOl originally but they moved their comment without moving the reply so I made a new one under theirs. Even so, it is no where near bludgeoning, to the point that I question if Jess knows what bludgeoning means. PackMecEng (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  And multiple editors have gone into in-depth challenges of those who have voted in support, including plenty of aggressively hostile characterizations of them. It's been a free-for-all. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Very well. I only happened to see this part of the discussion by chance due to how the page loaded, so it seems that I have misunderstood what is going on. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support To call Lightbreather deeply obsessed with the topic is an understatement. Just looking at the numbers of edits in article space, such as Gun politics in the United States (506), National Rifle Association (409), Gun show loophole (385), Assault weapon (315) and Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (284), shows only part of the problem. The real issue is at the talk pages for the same set of articles, highlighted by Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban (484), Talk:Gun politics in the United States (425), Talk:Gun show loophole (423), Talk:Magazine (firearms) (293) and Talk:Gun control (239), where Lightbreather has been the main reason that these discussions go on forever, never arriving anywhere. Having seen the overall depth of both the obsession and the over-the-top argumentativeness there and at way too many other articles in the sphere of guns, weapons and magazines, there is a clear problem. This chronic habit of editing articles and talk pages with guns blazing all the time and the inability to separate their personal views from allowing the community to settle on a consensus is why these topics have been so unnecessarily fraught and contentious for far too long. A topic ban in the area might finally allow this editing space to reach the necessary and difficult middle ground that Lightbreather has simply not allowed to happen. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  The idea that the necessary and difficult middle ground has not been reached because of Lightbreather is with absolutely no merit, a proposition so disconnected from reality one wonders how any reasonable person can reach such a conclusion. You present precisely no evidence in favor of any of the numerous negative claims about Lightbreather, pointing solely to edit counts, which offer nothing but an insight into Lightbreather's length of tenure on Wikipedia. Katzrockso (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is no correlation between edit count and length of tenure at all, so there's no insight to be had. There are editors here who've been active more than two decades with less than a thousand edits. And editors here who've been active less than a decade with more than half a million edits. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Editing a talk page a lot is not against any policy or guideline. Katzrockso (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Who, exactly, are you suggesting made such a claim? Non-sequitur. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm a bit of a WP:GNOME. Also, have you looked at Springee's talk-page counts?[56] Talk:Andy Ngo (787), Talk:Republican Party (629), Talk:AR-15-style rifle (518)... Or Anastrophe's?. Six of his top-10 main-space and TP counts are gun-related.[57] Lightbreather (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Now if only that could be laid out on a timeline, where it'd show the vast majority of it evaporated for a nearly eleven year interval. Wonder what that correlates with... cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  If the insinuation here is that absent Lightbreather disturbing the walled garden that characterizes gun-related articles on Wikipedia, you do not significantly contribute to gun articles, I would suggest that weighs more negatively on your conduct than hers. Katzrockso (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's easy to casually sling about terms like 'walled-garden', sounds impressive, no evidence of course obtains. Ever. LB pushes POV relentlessly; I'd hazard you'd have a hard time finding POV edits in gun-related articles by me - or pretty much any articles. Not saying it's impossible; but unlikely. Countering a POV warrior is a good thing. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Or maybe you and Springee and others are POV defending. Consider the ridiculous amount of energy you all put into defending the word "cosmetic" in one article only to concede three months later that it was overused.[58] It's easy to push or defend a POV when you're in a well-established editorial majority. Read How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page Lightbreather (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, it's a real problem. There has been a persistent and pervasive multi-editor effort to keep information about mass shootings out of articles about specific firearms and firearm components. Frankly there's a lot of CPUSH here and this looks like removing one person who cared enough to push back. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's for the same reason that we don't go into detail about murders committed using knives in articles about technical aspects of different knives or other inanimate objects that humans use to harm other humans. The POV push is to make anything gun-related a lightning point for the POV of those who revile inanimate objects, rather than the humans who use them to harm others. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Not that it matters but one of my other hobbies is hunting and I certainly don't revile inanimate objects and yet I think reliably sourced material about how high capacity magazines are involved in mass shootings is encyclopedically relevant. I suggest you take off the US gun-culture blinders. Simonm223 (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am constantly reminded how handicapped I am, being one of the few around here without access to the Mind-Reading Module. Anastrophe knows everything about your motivations, and you know all about other people’s. Handy, that.

  But what if the M-RM needs a little recalibration? Qwirkle (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is a real problem, and what disappoints me most both coming from Lightbreather and those opposing the TBAN is using arguments that they're not the only problem or that other people are just as bad. In the real world the fact that other people are speeding or cheating on their taxes or committing murder would never be accepted by a judge; in Wikipedia, we reject the argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I see a real problem and it appears that Lightbreather's defenders largely also see the issue. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  If you're going to use crime as an example, I can point you to stand-your-ground laws. Or if everyone is speeding it's fair to ask why one person is being singled out. Jessintime (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  By the way, don't be shy - post a link to your own xtools stats! The contrast from mine is...breathtaking. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  And other than some areas into which I've done deep diving over the years, such as at ANI or participating in AfDs generally, the bulk of my edits are in hockey articles. We're interested in the things in which we're interested. I've a tough time parsing out anything sinister in that. Ravenswing 02:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support While some (but not all) of the opposes might have merit, in my view this is an area Lightbreather simply cannot edit in without causing themselves (and others) an inordinate amount of stress. The sheer number of posts above (including labeling any other editor's observations or comments as 'accusations') make this pretty clear. Since they can't seem to stay way, and then complain about the stress and other issues caused by editing in these topics, a CBAN would make that decision for them and possibly allow them to recover and edit more productively in areas that don't cause so much stress. Intothatdarkness 14:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. This looks much more like several editors who strongly dislike one another getting into repetitive arguments than a case where banning only Lightbreather will solve the problem. There is plenty of poor behaviour to go around, and singling out one participant is not a fair outcome. R3YBOl (🌲) 15:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  looks like you moved your comment without moving the reply to it. But whay sanctions would you purpose on others and why? PackMecEng (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per e.g. Scribolt, Carrite, R3YBOl, but also a bit per ATG et al. Maybe more editors should be engaging in these articles and talk page discussions. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Not seeing anything actionable here. I get Sluzzelin's point, but I'm not touching any US-related articles, as I may have to travel there in the future. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - I have been observing Lightbreather on and off wiki for some time now ever since my participation in certain AfDs initiated against their articles and their subsequent forceful and consensus-defeating reopening. Considering their disposition while they edit in the gun control area and their countenance towards editors who disagree with them, I have no faith in their ability to contribute constructively here, at the best case, at least in this subject. Their repeated promises to keep away from this subject followed by their WP:POINTY and uncivil inability to do so puts me in this unfortunate position of having to support a reinstatement of their T-Ban. I'm simply baffled by the number of noticeboards involved and the animus conflicts they find themselves amidst when they invariably wander back to this subject. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. I don't really edit on gun pages, but the one interaction I had with the editor in question was them accusing another editor of WP:COI [59]. I have read through many - but not all - comments for and against the TBAN, and it appears that the editor has a history of similar violations of WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:BLUDGEON, in addition to counter-productive editing spanning more than a decade. Notably the reversion of the unanimous merge of high-capacity magazine [60], the sarcastic response to the pushback to her efforts [61], and the doubling down on said sarcasm which Lightbreather themself described as "smarmy" and "backhanded" [62]. Lightbreather claims to have later apologized "for real", but how can we take this as genuine given the years of history showing WP:GAMING and only "behaving" with propriety when it seems strategic? Given the jurisprudence, if you will, I think that a restoration of the TBAN, at the very least would be the best outcome for Wikipedia's coverage of gun-related issues. Interestingly Lightbreather wrote this essay: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing is a myth. A warning against some others, whose conduct was less than ideal, but didn't rise to the level of Lightbreather's, is in order. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per LokiTheLiar and Scribolt. Disagreeing with a local majority is not by itself disruptive editing, and consensus is determined by the strength of policy-based arguments rather than head count. I also understand why Lightbreather believed that edits and merge outcomes originating with a now-blocked sock warranted renewed scrutiny.
  Genabab (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, Lightbreather isn't the root cause of the issues people have identified. Many people have pointed out that others have done the things Lightbreather is accused of here; and the only answer anyone has given is that that should be raised separately. But many kinds of misbehavior lead to reciprocial misbehavior; when an issue is endemic to a topic area, we should determine the root cause, and I think it is hard to argue that Lightbreather is the root cause here. It is natural for someone's responses to seem like rules-lawyering if all the arguments they encounter are themselves rules-lawyering, for instance, or to seem intransigent when they are encountering stonewalling. When talking about things like refusal to accept consensus and engaging in extensive litigation when things don't go their way, many of the people arguing against Lightbreather themselves refused to accept a consensus that didn't go their way - and the very fact that that discussion didn't go their way shows that their argument that Lightbreather is purely intransigent isn't true, suggesting that they are overstating their consensuses (a common feature of stonewalling.) I think that reading the discussion surrounding that suggests that some of the people pushing to sanction Lightbreather here have engaged in WP:STONEWALLing behavior, attempting to use the discussions that did go their way (including, as Lightbreather accurately points out, older discussions tainted by sockpuppetry) as a bludgeon to ignore ones that didn't, and that the "intransigence" that they see from Lightbreather is the result of this misbehavior on their own part rather than anything else. It is in particular entirely reasonable to rerun discussion that were tainted by sockpuppetry, and unreasonable to engage in stonewalling surrounding them. Either way, this is complex enough that if people want to pursue it it should probably go to ArbCom, so the behavior of all sides can be viewed in context and everyone involved can have a chance to defend themselves equally. --Aquillion (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose As said some of those wanting him banned are just as, if not more so, "guilty" of the same. Maybe Boomerang applies here as well for some pushing this? ContentEditman (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I've noticed some “oppose” !votes where the rationale appears to be that there are other editors who deserve to be sanctioned who aren't discussed here. I'm not sure what to make of this argument- it's not based on policy and can be true, to various degrees, in almost every discussion. Theres always someone else who has done something worse than whoever is being discussed, but that doesn’t stop all the other ANI discussions. ScottyNolan (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  There has hardly been evidence presented that there was any disruptive conduct whatsoever. But when it comes down to it, whether or not particular behavior is disruptive can only be truly understood in the fuller context of a set of discussions or a broader discourse. If other editors are inciting disruption, then what might look like disruptive editing might be justifiable.

  ANI is hardly a policy-based forum in the first place - it's largely a morass of random opinions based solely on selectively presented diffs, typically contextless, designed to elicit an emotional reaction and justify the harshest possible sanction without any consideration for actual policy (which is WP:PREVENTATIVE and WP:NOPUNISH). There is no rationale to ANI. Katzrockso (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Springee and Anastrophe were mentioned in TBUA's first paragraph, but in a way, IMO, that suggests that I am responsible for their behavior. Anastrophe has replied at great length here, and very aggressively, which is his habit. As for Springee, his edit statistics show top namespace totals as Talk, at 44%, and he spends the same amount of time - 19% - at Wikipedia as he does at Main. He has been banned from participating in WP discussions re the behavior of others. Why he hasn't asked to participate here is anyone's guess. If you look at my namespace totals, nearly 50% is Main, 21% is Talk, and only 9% is Wikipedia - half as much as Springee.o Lightbreather (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Many of the 'Oppose' !votes consist of brief pile-on statements such as 'per above' or 'I agree' without engaging with the underlying issue. There are also indications of possible off-wiki coordination, including Lightbreather's involvement on Wikipediocracy and her request to move a conversation into a private area. Regardless, the central concern is the significant amount of editor time being spent on this one individual's disruptive editing, rather than on constructive improvements to the encyclopedia. A topic ban appears necessary at this stage to resolve the situation before it requires further escalation at AE. ~2026-40600-40 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  If I may say something. I’ll repeat that it is certainly a serious mistake to be considering her ban. The user is a woman who has been harassed by a group of users who claimed to be upholding the status quo. This is textbook systemic bias: users are focusing a lot on Lightbreather losing her temper, while ignoring the fact that these users, who are Second Amendment advocates and seem to support the use of guns, have monopolized the site. They’ve tried to use somewhat strange explanations, such as claiming that guns are “inanimate objects” and that the history of shootings and death statistics related to them shouldn’t be brought up. Sure, man.

  Respectful editing can, in fact, be a weapon. If a group of editors resorts to absurd analogies to wear down a dissenting editor until she loses her temper, it is they who are disrupting the encyclopedia, not her.

  Can the “consensus” (false, in my opinion; echo chamber bias) agree to violate NPOV? I think it cannot.

  Furthermore, in my opinion, LB's rude behavior was intentionally provoked by her opponents as a strategy to get her banned. Lightbreather is not perfect (no human being is)—she is loud, angry, and her "ringing" hurts people's ears. But she is only ringing because the house is on fire. Banning Lightbreather might make the noticeboards quieter, but it will be "the silence of an encyclopedia that gave up its pursuit of neutrality." Oppose the Ban. Best regards, SilentHalo (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC) (Double-vote).

  WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:SOAPBOX. SilentHalo you should strike your comments. ~2026-40879-72 (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Pointing out that the house is on fire is not "soapboxing", and I will not strike the alarm simply because its ringing disturbs the sleep of those currently holding the matches. SilentHalo (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are also indications of possible off-wiki coordination There are, but not from the "oppose" votes. Grandpallama (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I must admire the laser sharp focus that allows a man to look about the burning dumpster he stands in, and note that there is more smoke in the other corner. Qwirkle (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm curious by what means someone makes such an assertive comment. How would you know what the other oppose votes are doing or not doing off-wiki? It's a strange construct. I've no idea if there's been any off-wiki coordination of 'support' votes, because I don't engage with any WP editors offsite; so...again. Interesting construct presented, asserting a negative as an absolute. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  "The unsubstantiated claim we didn't object to was reversed to one we dislike?! Clutch pearls! The vapors!" Grandpallama (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well that's incoherent. Let me map it out for you. "There are, but not from the "oppose" votes." The only way you could assert that is if you had knowledge of the activities of all "oppose" voters. That would be quite something; every single "oppose" voter has discussed their vote offsite...as a group...that you've participated in...in one venue? That's really quite fascinating. It sounds like a mustered voting bloc if so. You could calm my concerns with some above board explanation - here, rather than in a private discussion offsite, which I've neither access nor interest in. But - no matter. I've no expectation of indulgence. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  What a silly response. Grandpallama (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are also indications of possible off-wiki coordination.

  I've seen the discussion at Wikipediocracy about Lightbreather being discussed here and I didn't see any canvassing at all. If you have evidence supporting your wild claim, I'd invite you to share it with the arb committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. We are about to make a serious mistake by treating the symptom and protecting the disease. The user is a woman who has been harassed by a group of Second Amendment advocates. They have taken control of these articles to maintain their status quo. This is clear systemic bias. The community is focused entirely on Lightbreather losing her temper while ignoring the reasons behind it. They try to justify hiding shooting and death statistics with odd explanations, such as saying guns are just "inanimate objects."
  1. Respectful editing can be weaponized. If a group of editors uses exhausting tactics to wear down a dissenting editor until she snaps, they are the ones disrupting the encyclopedia, not her. Forcing an editor to debate absurd tangents—such as asking her to define a "high-capacity washing machine" just to add a citation about a gun—is filibustering. Polite psychological pressure is still disruption.
  2. A false consensus cannot violate NPOV. What is "consensus" in an echo chamber? If six wolves and one sheep vote on what’s for dinner, that is a consensus, but it is not a neutral one. A localized, narrow group cannot simply agree to override the global Wikipedia requirement for a Neutral Point of View.
  3. Her reactions were intentionally provoked by those users. Chillingly, User:Anastrophe literally said, "The outcome of the rescission of the gun control topic ban was inevitable... I warned of this." This behavior resembles that of a hunter waiting in a duck blind, not someone who wants to build and maintain an encyclopedia. By demanding definitions of washing machines, he waited for her to lose her temper so they could bring her back to this noticeboard and say, "I told you so."
• Lightbreather is not perfect; no human being is. She can be loud, gets angry, and her "ringing" can hurt people's ears. But she is only ringing because the house is on fire. As her opponents admitted in this very thread, they set traps, attacked her edits, and waited for her to lose her temper as a tactic to get her dragged back to this noticeboard.
  Banning Lightbreather might make the noticeboards quieter, but it will be the silence of a graveyard. It will be "the silence of an encyclopedia that gave up its pursuit of neutrality." Do not punish the fire alarm because the ringing annoys you. Put out the fire. Oppose the ban. Regards, SilentHalo (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  "Finally, we must address the chilling admission by user Anastrophe"

  "Anastrophe openly admitted in this thread that he lobbied for her unbanning just to see if she would break her promise not to edit gun articles."

  "This is the behavior of a hunter waiting in a duck blind."

  These claims are, to put it bluntly as I am wont to do, unmitigated horseshit. You clearly did not even read my commentary when I tendered the vote in favor of unbanning. I made no "admission" that my purpose in voting for the unban was some sort of trap; that's an unvarnished lie. LB did a splendid job of productively editing the encyclopedia for years while under restraint after the unban. Nobody baited her into discussion on gun-related articles after the restraints were removed. She did that all by herself.

  Intolerable slander and innuendo. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I moved these here, as they were really confusing in the previous location (and out of chronological order. Feel free to revert if I wasn't meant to do that. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Also, @SilentHalo, would you please unbold all but one of your bold "oppose" statements? Generally bold "Supports" or "Opposes" are used to gage how many different editors have weighed in on each side of an issue, having two like you do is quite confusing and breaks from the convention, it looks like "double-voting" (not that we're supposed to vote). Samuelshraga (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ok. SilentHalo (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I object in the strongest terms this editor's (for clarity, "SilentHalo") significant revision of an already tendered vote and narrative, neatly eliding the disgusting commentary they alleged against me, after it had been published. My understanding is that after others have responded to commentary, significantly changing the content (so much that it makes the quotes I provided appear to be out of thin air) is frowned upon, if not violative of some codicil of a policy somewhere. I'm in no mood to look it up.

  As loathesome as the previous version was, gussied up with flowery prose - possibly LLM assisted - this slightly toned down but flowery version renders my response apparently non sequitur. Not acceptable. Restore the text verbatim.

  Had I engaged in a personalized attack at this (the previous revision) level on an oppose voter, I wouldn't even be posting this comment; I'd have been summarily site banned for life.

  And as far as I can tell, prepending "Strong" in front of one's vote doesn't, or at least shouldn't, hold any weight. Amusing though. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Anastrophe. I was trying to combine my initial post and my double vote into one clear, numbered format after another editor pointed it out. I also revised the wording to make it more concise. I didn’t mean to leave your reply hanging or disrupt the flow of the conversation (I'm really sorry for that) and I didn’t mean to create an edit conflict. As a newer user, I’m still learning the talk page rules about changing comments after replies have been posted. So, I will definitely keep that in mind moving forward. That said, my main view on the systemic issues in this topic remains exactly the same. Have a good one! SilentHalo (talk) SilentHalo (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is extremely, extremely obviously written by Claude. And, if you look at their talk page, the em dashes make the LLM-assisted nature of their prose even more obvious. ~2026-40819-82 (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have no idea what Claude is. I didn't use any LLM. I think you're trying to undermine my position. SilentHalo (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support the pattern here is not a single incident, but a documented recurrence and multiple sanctions. TBAN was rescinded in November 2025, and within a few months she is back to similar behavior: reverting things unilaterally, battleground conduct, accusing others, etc., even after assuring that she has learned the lessons from previous bans Ar1201u1 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support TBAN is the best remedy in light of Lightbreather's continued disruptions after lifting sanctions less than a year ago. Apologizing and promising not to do it again only to immediately return to the same behavior justifies an indefinite ban from gun related topics. Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Based on the multiple examples of repeated behavior (ie WP:BATTLE, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:ICANTHEARYOU) of this editor I support this TBAN proposal. Even though Lightbreather has demonstrated the ability to make some positive edits on articles with subjects outside of guns without incident, she seems incapable of neutral editing on firearms subjects. Assertions that the proposal is motivated by bias, factionalism, or an effort to remove an "inconvenient" editor should not be made without compelling evidence. ~2026-40636-10 (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• SUPPORT: User:Lightbreather's conduct on CT is disruptive especially when things don't go their way. The topic ban was lifted in november 2025 on their own assurance; however within months they were back following the previous exact pattern. The high capacity magazine merge was reaffirmed independently in two separate AfDs, yet the response each time was to contest it again rather than accept consensus as per WP:HEAR. They opened a WP:CANVASS-adjacent thread on another editor's talk page titled "Springee's conduct". A topic ban is the narrowest fix actually on the table.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support For me the timing is the main point. When their previous TBAN was lifted eight months ago, LB gave assurances that they had followed their restrictions and behaved as promised. Only a few months later, we see the same aspersions, the same disputes moving from one article to another, and the same WP:ICANTHEARYOU that the 2015 case already raised. Michael Boutboul (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just noting I moved this as it was in the wrong section. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems like LB is attempting to make edits with reliable sources, [that aren't "firearm experts,"] and therefore those opposing her see it as political versus mechanical expertise. Meanwhile she is linked to commercial sites for sources and [gives them the benefit of the doubt.] 🟊 𝟺𝔟𝔰𝟽𝔯𝟺𝔠𝟽𝟹𝔡 🟊 ✉ 08:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support What a mess. Ive read what I could of this without hurting my brain too much. I had a little involuntary involvement with LB when pinged to a discussion, accusing me of malfeasance in performing a swap/merge following an AFD. I performed that per consensus as far as I can tell from the diffs (I dont even remember this vividly). I am guessing the convoluted nature of swapping pages caused confusion. So, I am not sure why the casting of aspersions is occurring, which appears to be a repeated theme with this editor. LB then goes on state intent to forum shop for assistance when they dont get their way. And then this comment makes me wonder about POV pushing and whether they are here to contribute to the encyclopedia or battleground about gun stuff. To wit: "Over 40,000 people died from gun-related injuries in 2024 in the U.S. alone. Is the average reader who comes to Wikipedia and searches for "high-capacity magazine" likely to want to slog through technical Magazine (firearms) content". While it is tragic that 40,000 or so people die from firearms (mostly suicides and accidents if Im not mistaken, which wont be from "high capacity magazines"), that has absolutely no bearing on this subtopic. That would make sense in a discussion on Gun violence in the United States, but not "here".
  All in all, given what Ive read here, my thin and unpleasant experience with this editor, their overall history Ive skimmed, I think a topic ban should be reinstated. ARBCOM gave them a second chance, rope if you will, and they have proceeded to hang themselves again. If this isnt done now, I cant imagine we wont be back here again in a few months going over the same issues. For the good of all, including LB, a TBAN is much needed cool off. And to LB, it looks like you have retired and unretired a few times recently, and are now semi-retired. It may be best to just take the retirement and have your account scrambled, or focus on other topics. Wikipedia isnt worth what appears to be very stressful and you keep getting sucked back in. I dont say this out of hostility, but its what I would do in such a situation to make a hard break. ← Metallurgist (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  ... accusing me of malfeasance in performing a swap/merge following an AFD... ~ Metallurgist

  I did no such thing. I reported what happened in a matter-of-fact way. Which of the six sentences I wrote accused you of anything? I didn't link to a policy or guideline or even an essay.

  As for my alleged "intent to forum shop", I only requested that the third AfD be opened to a wider audience. The second AfD pinged the participants in the first, and the third AfD pinged participants in the second. Nonetheless, the discussion was not open to a wider audience, and the result was the same. Lightbreather (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Readers: Fortunately an admin was able to fix the talk pages, and he left a comment on the talk page about the merge.[63] Lightbreather (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Although wikiblather newspeak uses the phrase a little differently, LB is “not here to create an encyclopedia.” LB is here to propagandize, and that affects the quality of the articles far more than her “opponents” edits do. Anyone who can claim that firearm magazines with >11 round capacity have a noticeable effect on 40,000 annual firearm deaths is lying to somebody, and it doesn’t matter whether it is just to themselves. Right Great Wrongs Elsewhere, this isn’t the place.
  This took some thinking about, since there is a real issue with completely ignoring the matters I see LB belaboring, and several people whose judgment I respect, or otherwise respect, fall in the oppose column. Qwirkle (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not seeing any strong evidence of overly egregious behavior that supports a topic ban for this editor. The uncivil behavior goes back and forth between editors over several articles. And I think such behavior is bound to occur in CTOP areas. In fact, in this thread, one of the involved editors admitted that they too have been uncivil. So, to me, this seems like content disputes across several pages. I appreciate the OP's Good Faith efforts by opening this ANI. But it has served to shed light on contentious behavior among sets of editors on multiple pages, not just one single editor. I agree with User:Aquillion that this would be a task for ARBCOM to ferret out who is responsible for what. But I am not sure if the contentious behaviors on display here and on the linked pages has reached that level. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - I think that the evidence, especially that Lightbreather kept reopening AfDs when consensus went against her, is obvious and points to unacceptable disruption. Her responses here, in which she stands by her actions and blames other editors, are further evidence that its a behavioural patten that she is unwilling to change. Sanctions should be preventative and sanctioning this editor seems just and necessary. But since @Katzrockso says that editors here are effectively voting WP:LIKEIT and WP:DONTLIKEIT, AE may be a better place for non-self-selecting editors to actually deal with the large quantity of evidence referenced here. ScottyNolan (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  ... Lightbreather kept reopening AfDs when consensus went against her... ~ ScottyNolan

  
  

  I never opened or reopened an AfD.

  
  

  Her responses here, in which she stands by her actions and blames other editors, are further evidence that its a behavioural patten that she is unwilling to change. ~ ScottyNolan

  
  

  Here are examples of me admitting when I had messed up or was wrong

  • I'm sorry our back-and-forth caused disruption.[64]
  • I apologize.[65]
  • Apologies, AadamentAardvark. I misunderstood how notifications in this kind of situation work.[66]
  • If the criteria is saying something about my behavior in article discussions, I don't think Tioaeu8943 qualifies. Sorry.[67]
  • I'm sorry. I misunderstood your request.[68]
  • My apologies on the rifle sources I gave. We have several discussions ongoing here and I strayed on this one.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-capacity_magazine&diff=prev&oldid=1354333523
  • Re the RfC you linked to above, Chevrolet Caprice is back in the Beltway Sniper article, so I guess consensus has changed on that. Apologies. I got them mixed up.[69]
  • Oops! I thought I pinged all editors involved in these discussions, but I missed at least one. Courtesy ping: Sirfurboy. My apologies.[70]

  
  

  Me accepting consensus: (I had argued hard for inclusion of the Ruger 10/22 content in the Magazine (firearms) article, and Springee and five others argued hard for deletion. In the end I accepted consensus.)

  • As for the deleted paragraph, yes, consensus resulted in it being deleted. Compared to other sources in the article, where there are any, the sources were, IMO, adequate if not perfect. Others disagreed and it was deleted.[71]

  Lightbreather (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support: Looking at the evidence here, there's a clear pattern repeating itself: battleground behavior, bludgeoning discussions, not accepting consensus, and turning disputes personal. All within the firearms topic area! What makes this especially troubling is the timing. The previous topic ban was only recently lifted, and that was based on assurances that the earlier problems were understood and wouldn't happen again. Clearly, that hasn't helped.
  To be clear, this isn't about Lightbreather's views on gun control, and it's not about whether other editors have also acted badly at times. The real question is simpler: is her continued involvement in this particular topic area causing disruption that could otherwise be avoided? Given how quickly similar conduct has resurfaced after a prior sanction, an indefinite topic ban seems like the narrowest remedy that actually addresses the problem while still leaving her free to contribute productively in other areas. Instant History (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose unless those involved get the same treatment. Seems like an attempt to simply mute someone they don't like who was making useful sourced additions to their fief.
  ~2026-31754-76 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per Aquillion, Steve Quinn & the "silence" point from SilentHalo. Only opposing weakly as there's a lot of history and maybe I'm missing things. But my read of the diffs is that Lightbreather is to be commended for their courage, composure & fairness in the face of considerable provocation. And that most of the inaccurate statements & sub optimal behaviour is coming from the anti LB side. For example Anyone who can claim that firearm magazines with >11 round capacity have a noticeable effect on 40,000 annual firearm deaths is lying is one of the most counter factual assertions I've seen in a while. If one looks at the Montreal shooting from a few weeks back for example, the police took out the shooter while he was re-loading. That's super common with these things, much more bullets tend to fly when the shooter has High Capacity mags. As per Hatfield's manifesto, shooters will sometimes prefer death over being captured alive, and it's not seen as a great challenge "to attain a level of physical competence that is above that of the average police officer". Such firearms training as police do receive tends to emphasise defensive tactics. According, unless law enforcement heavily outnumber the shooter they often largely rely on the opening provided by re-loading. Naturally, mag size will rarely if ever make a difference to a suicide attempt, and sometimes not to a specific gun-fight, but on average shooters equipped with HC mags tend to cause substantially more fatalities. This said, I'd recommend to LB that they consider a six month voluntary break from gun control topics. And if they return to the TA, do so in more low key way. There's a small but growing number of left leaning folk, who see further gun reg as a net -ve, when they consider the second order effects from a Quigley POV. So it may not be worth all the stress to try to correct the preceived NPOV violation, even though you are undoubtedly correct on many of your specific points. Lastly, a no-fault 2-way i-ban for LB & Anastrophe might be condusive to more peaceful editing, if they keep editing in the same area and dont soon resolve their differences. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  if some moron, criminal, terrorist or lunatic is able to fire faster, of course that is a bad thing…but it is a tiny fraction of that 40K there. It would have been possible for LB to have written an honest argument there, but…. Qwirkle (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  At question here is not whether Rambo with a M60 is significantly more lethal than a rifle hobbled to 10 rounds, but whether you can line ten talking heads together, and get them to agree, as round-by-round gets pushed in, when a magazine passes the threshold of a magazine capable of holding more rounds of ammunition than the standard magazine for a particular firearm. If you look at LB's provided sources, the majority consist of trade sites, marketing material, an unattributed statement by a representative – “High-capacity magazines make it easier for shooters to kill large numbers of people in short periods of time,” Ms. Titus said in a statement. “No civilian needs the ability to fire over 40 shots in less than 30 seconds like the shooter in Dayton did.”, etc. The problem here is that there is an already established definition at play, the 10-round limit established by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In that same WSJ article [72], it is established that A) Ms. Titus is working off of the FAWB definition: Rep. Dina Titus (D., Nev.), is co-sponsoring a bill that would outlaw magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. and that B) gun control groups also use the FAWB definition as their starting point: “Anytime you’re adding more rounds to a magazine, and preventing that brief time you have for a magazine exchange, you are increasing lethality,” said T. Christian Heyne, vice president of policy at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an advocacy group that supports efforts to limit magazines to 10 to 15 rounds. In the article that you cite: We then discerned whether each high-fatality mass shooting involved a LCM—unless otherwise stated, defined consistent with the 1994 federal ban as a detachable ammunition-feeding device capable of holding more than 10 bullets. Stikkyy (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Important point. I'll concede that re-reading the HC mag discussions from a 'Problem of definition' angle, it's probably the pro gun crowd who are being more accurate (Allbeit no clear indication either side are being dishonest.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think it is possible to reconcile LB’s misuse of “high capacity m1911” with both competency and honesty…and LB appears competent elsewhere. Qwirkle (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - This appears to be a content dispute rather than disruption on part of one party. Several of the diffs of alleged misconduct are just ordinary requests for substantiating sourcing claims. The evidence presented here does not meet the threshold for a topic ban. Zalaraz (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. An intervention is definitely needed to restore order and NPOV in these articles, but a one-sided topic ban is the wrong one. I've just looked at a random sample of articles in the topic area and they all reduce to anti-gun control tracts. Some more egregious than others, but all with a definite skew. Not quite a walled garden, but getting there. We might need a cleanup project.—S Marshall T/C 08:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is the most accurately concise summary of what is going on here. Grandpallama (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  How odd, I was thinking the opposite. What with it not addressing any of the issues brought up and just a vague and useless vibe check on the NPOV of random articles. Hopefully opposes like this will be ignored by closers. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  If you want to have this opinion carry some weight, you really need to create an account, and do some difficult editing in another subject. Perhaps in an ideal world, that would be different, but your opinion, which I roughly agree with, will be discounted here because some will see you as a sock puppet and some will see you as a meat puppet. Qwirkle (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Fair, people do stupid shit all the time. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Carrite, Simonm223, and S Marshall. Gamaliel (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems like the use of prior misdeeds to eliminate input by an editor who, at this point, isn't behaving substantially worse than several other participants. Also, looking at the !votes so far, something feels off, to me, about the population of editors weighing in here. Off-wiki activity has been mentioned here, without evidence, but, again without evidence, my spidey-sense is tingling. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support.The state of a topic area being bad doesn’t justify disruptive behavior to fix it, the state of a topic area being good doesn’t justify disruptive behavior to defend it. If Lightbreather is right on content that’s irrelevant to conduct.~2026-41042-49 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose to be honest, this looks like a lot of petty bickering and if there is a reason for this it's buried and I can't imagine what it is. Banning someone or restricting them should require a clear point, which I can't see. Some people should spend more time looking up research, editing or other productive actions than bickering. Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  After taking a little closer look this clearly appears to be a smear campaign to ban people with opposing views about gun control, and it's not unprecedented. An article from eight years ago Pro-gun Wikipedia users spark fierce editing war shows this has been a pattern of behavior for a long time. Many people editing material on preventing violence may have noticed this as well if it relates to gun control or in some cases it also has happened to prevent research even when it focuses on other causes, as I found out in 2009. A greater effort needs to be made to prevent people with agendas from banning those opposing them. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Refer to ArbCom as a case request when this discussion is archived or closed. The battleground conduct shown in this ANI discussion itself suggests that the topic area would benefit with restrictions imposed on multiple editors. I see that the current dispute is a continuation of both the Gun control (2014) and Lightbreather (2015) cases. ANI is not an effective venue for dealing with complex multi-editor conduct disputes like this one, and the structured format of an ArbCom case (i.e. Gun control 2) would apply scrutiny more evenly among all of the involved parties. — Newslinger talk 20:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  +1 This would be the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  This should absolutely be referred to arbcom. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  +3. Newslinger I have been thinking about this course of action, and I have to say that I agree. I think ARBCOM might be able to address the issues that have surfaced before they become potentially worse, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Refer to arbcom per above Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yup, this is probably best. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  [+6] this would be a good idea because it might be that there are multiple people in the topic area that have been stonewalling and all and they are just flying under the radar… ~2026-40220-54 (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I don’t think it’s without evidence at this point, there’s literally been a sock blocked already. This proposal has broken ANI. Clearly there’s gaming going on to both support and oppose this proposal. Partisans have claimed that it’s the other side doing the dark arts but it’s obvious to anyone with an ounce of impartiality that the whole discussion is compromised. Does anyone think votes like these should be factored into consensus, rather than just be immediately CU’d?[73][74][75]. AGF is not a suicide pact, but here we’re just chugging kool-aid.Instant History (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Instant History. The above comment from you contains some personal attacks. Accusing other editors of gaming the system and saying this whole discussion is compromised are personal attacks. Also, pertaining to the diffs, what evidence do you have that the ivotes or comments should removed or struck from this ANI? Again, without evidence, and as merely opinion, that is also a personal attack. In case you are not aware, this ANI has come under scrutiny by ARBCOM and the sanctioning process thereof. I think you need to strike or remove your comments. Also, if you think this ANI is "broken" then I recommend that you take a WIKIBREAK. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  This discussion has hardly broken ANI; it's not even the worst one I've seen in the past thirty days. That said, I guarantee you that CUs are watching this discussion. I trust them to know if and when they should investigate and/or intervene. Grandpallama (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Lightbreather has a long history of going after editors who don't agree with her and discussing them at length with her cohorts on Wikipediocracy. We all know that this off-wiki coordination is ethically dubious. She's displayed a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset that has not dwindled over years. She's demonstrated repeatedly that she will not accept consensus when it is at odds with her personal beliefs. After being given another chance to be WP:HERE, the community is once again spending countless hours on a single editor. It's time to make the ban permanent. ~2026-40887-01 (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Lightbreather is a talented editor, capable of remarkable precision and improvements to readability. This conflict seems to be taking an incredible toll on her mental well-being, pushing her toward leaving Wikipedia altogether. There appears to be a repeating pattern here: Lightbreather's edits are seen as pushing an agenda of gun control, which is not helped by the proportion of gun focused article edits, nor by her belief that one cannot push a point of view while remaining civil (WP:PUSHMYTH). This perspective on neutrality and singular focus causes greater pushback on her edits than one would usually need to deal with, which in turn causes her to feel ganged up on, persecuted, and even, as she describes it, frightened and threated. This feeling of being backed into a corner, and the exhaustion of being in a fight-or-flight state, cause Lightbreather to lash out emotionally where any other topic would allow her to remain civil. This defensive harshness causes a circle of increasing disrespect and anger in these discussions, which fuels Lightbreather to make more of the same edits, with perhaps even less concern toward neutrality, and the cycle begins again. These feelings of virtuous conflict are powerful, and could tempt any one of us to return to that source of emotional fuel no matter how much negativity it brings us. We can all be tempted back into a destructive behavior we've promised to stop, promised we don't even want to do. When that happens, we need our community to help us break the feedback loops before they drag down us and our community. This is what Lightbreather needs now, not just for the neutrality of our encyclopedia and the civility of our discourse, but for her. When someone proves that they cannot stop a behavior that's causing harm to themselves and others, the compassionate thing to do is to remove them from the temptation. We can't abandon her to keep causing the circumstance she knows can overwhelm her judgement. We need to keep quality editors engaged where they can do the most good and the least harm, to our wiki, to each other, and to themselves. I want to see what Lightbreather is capable of when her talents are focused where her ability to remain neutral is strongest and her mind is at peace.Idacticus (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. The decisive fact for me is the timeline, not the 2015 case itself. The topic ban was lifted in November 2025, and within months we are back at ANI over the same pattern in the same topic area: bludgeoning at Talk:Drum magazine and Talk:AR-15–style rifle, and repeated accusations of bad faith ("why do you keep misrepresenting this source") in place of engagement with the actual disagreement. I take the opposers' point that this dispute is not one-sided, and conduct by others can be examined separately. But an editor returning from a topic ban carries a reasonable expectation of exemplary conduct in that area, and that expectation has not been met. A TBAN is the minimum measure that addresses the problem while leaving Lightbreather free to contribute everywhere else.GrammarGuardian2021 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am not seeing any evidence of bludgeoning on either of above-mentioned talk pages Talk:Drum magazine and Talk:AR-15 style rifle. What I am seeing are sober discussions about sources and a couple of threads that include discussion about a disruptive sock editor. There were even concessions made to change "high capacity" to "extensive capacity." That is how discussions are conducted on talk pages - through proposals, agreements, and presentation of sources. Also, I searched for and did not find your quote "why do you keep misrepresenting the sources" on either talk page. This is beside the fact that the quote is presented with no context as in a diff is required. Hence, I don't find her prior topic ban to be a compelling argument for a ban. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose and refer to ArbCom per Newslinger. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. We want a positive editing environment. People who spend a lot of time within WP and see a lot of different behaviors may become inured to this. But, if you took a sample of Lightbreather's edits that have led to this long discussion, and showed them to 100 random people who don't edit on WP and said, "We're trying to build a positive editing environment here at Wikipedia. Here's an example of some edits made by a user. Do you feel like this would build a positive editing environment?" I think the vast majority would say "are you f*in kidding me. No, obviously." Novellasyes (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support: it appears Lightbreather returned after a lengthy sanction and picked up where she left off. This is a net negative to the project. Of course the entire gun area here is a hot mess, and other remedies may be needed as well, which is why I also support referring to ArbCom per Newslinger. Marquardtika (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Refer to ArbCom. After having read this novel of an ANI discussion, I feel as though this is probably the most prudent decision to be made on what is a very contentious dispute. Lynch44 17:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per S. Marshall. It's clear there are problems in this area, but there's nothing in the evidence to suggest LB is behaving any worse than anyone else. I think the suggestion of an arbcom case looking into the whole area and all participants could be a good Idea.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
• Refer to ArbCom as a case request when this discussion is archived or closed per Newslinger: "ANI is not an effective venue for dealing with complex multi-editor conduct disputes like this one" --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments by subject editor

I'm creating this subsection per WP:CBAN. Since much of the "evidence" (with few actual diffs) against me involves looking at my past, I am offering a glimpse into Springee's and Anastrophe's past, since they were both named in TBUA's opening paragraph. (My response to recent accusations and some of my observations about recent disputes are scattered about in the previous section.) Note that at this time - 14:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC) -there are 67 editors who've participated in this discussion, and Anastrophe makes up for about 13% (2,934) of the words posted. That's only 447 words less mine: 3,381. And I'm the subject of this ANI. Also, ANASTROPHE presented ZERO DIFFS.

I'm sure the admin who closes this will notice, but for other readers, I just studied the comments and !votes of the 28 editors arguing for me to be sanctioned in some way and only 6 provided actual diffs.

Lightbreather is the one with an extensive history of extremely disruptive conduct and battleground behavior in this topic area... ~ CoffeeCrumbs

And extensive only in this topic area, whereas Springee and Anastrophe have been warned and or sanctioned in numerous topic areas.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't add just "gun control" content. I created the articles for Robert J. Cottrol, a gun-rights scholar, and Aaron S. Zelman, founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Both neutral and unchallenged by pro-gun editors. Also, I don't just edit gun-related articles. Here, less than one year ago, I fixed Iljhgtn's merge hijinx about Trump's border wall - certainly a topic easily battled over - with ZERO problems.[76] Talk page:[77]

I've created these biographies: P. B. Young and Amy Kelly. Here is my editing history from 22 Sep. 2022 through 1 Nov. 2025,[78] and never once warned or taken to a noticeboard. So is the problem we're discussing here me? Or exclusively me?

Examples of Springee's editing history

Springee Talk page warnings (Many instances where Springee simply deletes warnings rather than archive them.)

• Feb. 2015 "Canvassing Warning"[79] Subject: politics.
• July 2022 "Your insinuation that this is akin to 'needling' and 'grave dancing' represents yet another WP:AGF fail and WP:ASPERSION on your part..."[80]
• Oct. 2022 "Your hounding is becoming disruptive. Please stop it before further action is taken."[81] Subject: BLP.
• Jan. 2023 "Your initial wholesale undo of my contribution without explanation is not 'acting in good faith' as a Wikipedia editor."[82] Subject: BLP.
• Feb. 2023 "Contentious topic alert"[83], which he dismissed because "it's already covered by my BLP and AP2 awareness tags at the top of the page."
• April 2023 "...having participated actively in the RfC, you know very well that the change was already discussed. Restoring language that was a consensus option there (and has since been modified without consensus, somehow slipping through) does not require further discussion. Please self-revert."[84]
• June 2023 "Post truth politics"[85] Possible canvassing? Also, Thebiguglyalien, who started this ANI against me (Lightbreather), seems to be tag-teaming with Springee against DN (click link [3]).
• Aug. 2023 "If you ask another editor one more time to provide evidence to support a reliable source's claim, I will report you to ANI. You are being disruptive. Stop."[86]
• Aug. 2023 "Notice of edit warring..."[87]
• Oct. 2025 "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people closed"[88] Indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards and admonished for their conduct in transgender topics, broadly construed.
• Nov. 2025 "Borderline topic-ban violation at NPOVN" [89]
• "June 2026 edit warring warning"[90]

Springee Assorted accusations, actions, and warnings at noticeboards

• AN3 Nov. 2015 User:Scoobydunk reported by User:Springee - Edit warring. Springee's report boomeranged and he was SANCTIONED.
• ARE Feb. 2019: Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910 Deleting criminal use from Glock, with eight diffs.

Comment by user submitting request mirrors what has been happening at "Magazine (firearms)" and related articles:

"Taken together in the context of the overall discussion, these comments represent a pattern of obstruction to the consensus-building process by refusing to work toward a compromise, refusing to accept that consensus may change and setting ever-higher bars for inclusion of criminal use content." WARNED.

• AN Aug. 2020 Is the ONUS policy enforceable? Who can claim ONUS in an ongoing discussion? Accusation that Springee was warring against consensus.
• AN Aug. 2020 Is the ONUS policy enforceable? Who can claim ONUS in an ongoing discussion? Accusation that "[Springee, Atsme, etc.] decided they're gonna stonewall this consensus by making novel (mis)interpretations of policy or derailing discussion."
• AN Aug. 2020 Is the ONUS policy enforceable? Who can claim ONUS in an ongoing discussion? Accusation of edit warring, with diffs.
• ARE Sep. 2020 Springee "User has been repeatedly edit warring on [three] pages subject to discretionary sanctions. Generally these are three reverts in a matter of hours." Result: SELF-IMPOSED 1RR.
• ARE April 2021 Springee Violations: Pushing unreliable sources, rejecting reliable sources; Result: No action, but "be more careful with unreliable/deprecated sources."
• ARE March 2023 Springee List of eight violations, with diffs. Result: No action but warned "Don't flood a talk page with comments and regulate your tone."

Comment by editor filing complaint mirrors what has been happening at "Magazine (firearms)" and related articles:

"I realize that all sources are open for discussion and nothing is universally reliable or unreliable, but constantly challenging reliable sources while pushing unreliable ones is a form of tendentious editing per WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. Springee's rationale for assessing sources often does not seem to be based on any discernable guideline, for example they argued that an opinion in The Intercept is unreliable because "the person offering the opinion/commentary is just a reporter, not some sort of expert." This is becoming a huge time sink as editors are expected to explain basic sourcing practices over and over, and content is kept out of articles per NOCONSENSUS when Springee cannot be convinced, leading to whitewashing and NPOV concerns. This is not conducive to collaborative editing in a contentious topic area."

• AN Nov. 2025 Reopen RfC at RSN that was closed early Admonished for unilaterally re-opening an RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 03:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Examples of Anastrophe's editing history

Anastrophe Talk page warnings

• March 2007 Fellow editor commented on Anastrophe's "tone, infliction and manner of writing"[91]
• July 2007 Anastrophe effectively asks editors to stay off his lawn.[92]
• Aug. 2007 3RR warning[93] Topic: Climate change.
• Oct. 2007 Blocked for edit warring.[94] Topic: Sports.
• Jan. 2008 3RR warning[95] Topic: Health care.
• Jan. 2008 Warned to not delete another person's talk page post.[96] He had deleted the post twice.[97][98]
• March 2009 Warned to not delete another person's talk page post.[99] The deletion:[100]
• 2013 His 2013 talk page was almost exclusively my pleas to be civil, to stop calling me a "single-purpose advocacy", WP:PA (three times) and WP:WAR.[101]

• 2014 His talk page has a post from me asking him to AGF and practice WP:TPYES with DN,[102] who was a newbie at the time and whom I was unofficially mentoring on how WP works. (Scan DN's archive[103] and note that my advice to them is not political').
• Feb. 2020 Blocked for 48 hours for edit warring.[104] Topic: Military operations.
• Jan. 2024 Warned of edit warring.[105] Topic: Films.

Anastrophe Assorted accusations, actions, and warnings at noticeboards

• ANI Aug. 2013 Accused (along with North8000 and two others) of multiple-editor OWNERSHIP[106] (After being beat up by a group of editors at a talk page,[107] I started an ANI - not knowing about the "boomerang". I'd been actively editing about a month-and-a-half at this point and foolishly sought dispute resolution, which I found on the policy page. Some months later, Anastrophe apologized for his behavior[108] and the few edits I was trying to make were accepted.)
• ANI April 2014 Opened an ANI about User:Viriditas[109] Warned at least twice during discussion about his own behavior.[110][111]
• AN3 Feb. 2020 User:Vnkd reported by User:Anastrophe - Edit warring; BOTH BLOCKED.

Comments by others about "Comments by subject editor"

Admins - As can be seen on the talk pages and the above discussion, this isn't just a debate against Springree, but quite a few other editors. Yet this myriad of diffs, going back to 2015 (and largely irrelevant to this actual discussion) is solely focused on Springree. Given that Springee can't defend themselves, which Lightbreather even references above, how can this not be seen as baiting and/or gaming? PositivelyUncertain (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

My reading of WP:BANEX is that it may allow Springree to defend themselves here. Although if I were Springree, I would clarify that with admins first. TarnishedPath^talk 02:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Springee did check with an admin (SFR if memory serves) and was advised not to comment here. It's on SFR's talk page. I doubt they will be commenting unless an Admin clarifies the position. Lightbreather did rather belatedly (today) mention on SFR's talk that they consider Springee to be an "involved participant," but clarification is likely in order. Intothatdarkness 17:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I think Springee should comment here if he wants to, and I alluded to that in a previous comment.[112] Also, I will be presenting evidence about Anastrophe too. Probably tomorrow. The reason I'm including older and new stuff is because quite a few people here have made an issue of my past. The reason Springee and Anastrophe is because Thebiguglyalien mentioned them right off the bat, but in such a way as to suggest I am responsible for how they behaved. Lightbreather (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I believe CBAN allows me to have my own section so my comments and replies don't get lost in the crowd. Would you and TarnishedPath kindly move your posts outside this section, please? Lightbreather (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lightbreather, CBAN says that sections may be organised into sections by template to allow the subject editor to post a response, not that they must be given a dedicated section. That's my read, although if you want to insert a section heading above PositivelyUncertain's comment separating these comments into a section, I'm not going to complain. TarnishedPath^talk 02:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain either. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

That's why I wrote "allows me" rather than "entitles me". I don't think it's asking a lot and I think anyone else going through something like this would feel the same. Lightbreather (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

While CBAN does mention subjects can have a subsection for their statement, it does not say indicate that subsection is solely for their use and cannot be replied to. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I think it defeats the purpose. Lightbreather (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If one analyzes this massive whataboutism construction, there's nothing substantivre in there about editor conduct. Springee is is exempular editor yet this massive creative off-topic construction tries to give an impression otherwise. IMO this is illustrative of what this report is about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• 'Support' - I have been observing Lightbreather on and off wiki for some time now ever since my participation in certain AfDs initiated against their articles and their subsequent forceful and consensus-defeating reopening. Considering their disposition while they edit in the gun control area and their countenance towards editors who disagree with them, I have no faith in their ability to contribute constructively here, at the best case, at least in this subject. Their repeated promises to keep away from this subject followed by their WP:POINTY and uncivil inability to do so puts me in this unfortunate position of having to support a reinstatement of their T-Ban. I'm simply baffled by the number of noticeboards involved and the animus conflicts they find themselves amidst when they invariably wander back to this subject. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  You may want to move this up underneath the other votes; this is a separate commentary section. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• As an Arbitration enforcement action under American Politics, @Anastrophe, Snow Rise, Hemmers, SilentHalo, Samuelshraga, and AadamentAardvark: are all limited to no more words in this discussion and other editors are limited to 500 words total, with the exception of Lightbreather. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. Is there a way to get Springee to leave a comment here? He successfully appealed his Wikipedia ban in order to open a close review of a discussion that both he and I were heavily involved in. It seems he should be given an exception here and encouraged to comment. Lightbreather (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I understand that you can't force him to participate, but right now his ban is rather protecting his own behavior from scrutiny. If he is given permission, what he chooses to do could be enlightening. Lightbreather (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  If they wish to make a statement they can request to do so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Please consider putting this notice at the top of this mess. The pinged editors will obviously be aware that they can no longer comment, but other editors who show up and comment are likely to do so before reading all the way to the bottom to see the 500-word restriction. Grandpallama (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  I added a notice to the top of the section when I placed the word limit. [113] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Good grief--I guess it's time for new glasses! My apologies. Grandpallama (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

And the award for longest ANI discussion goes to...

Let's look at the big picture. There are a few areas on Wikipedia (Gun control, Abortion...) where people have very strong opinions which lead to these huge repeated discussions that seldom accomplish anything but playing Whac-A-Mole, knocking down one editor when hundreds remain to pick up the torch -- and pitchfork.

I am thinking that there should be a carefully crafted set of restrictions that admims can apply to such pages, Things like (just off the top of my head -- the actual restrictions should be well thought out):

• 1RR or 2RR
• X number od article edits per day.
• X number of talk page comments per day.
• X amount of talk page words per day.

The idea here is to make everyone slow down and make their edits and talk page comments brief and well thought out, and to make following the conversation less like drinking out of a firehose.

Could something like this work? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I would imagine that the easiest way to do what you have proposed is via a contentious topics designation, particularly the standard set of restrictions. You might be aware that the (now historical) gun control CTOP was rescinded just a few months ago. Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Wow, that discussion seems reminiscent of some people's take on the Y2K millennium bug. The CTOP was doing its job and preventing excessive disruption, so they thought it wasn't needed. HJMitchell made that exact point in opposition, but nobody apparently concurred. It should be reinstated as a bare minimum, and probably a more full case is needed too.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Gurdeep Hora

Gurdeep Hora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a genuinely comically evasive discussion about AI use with @Gurkubondinn at User talk:Gurdeep Hora#April 2026, user proceeded to again rewrite their draft with the use of AI - see this diff which contains both WP:RO3 and WP:AIATTR in the line Jeet frequently explored themes of displacement, loss and the complexities of human relationships in times of upheaval. His short story Thandian Kandhan ("Cold Walls") has been widely discussed in academic studies of Partition literature, as well as their request for review at the AFCHD which contains the usual nebulous AI generated promises (what on earth does All facts have been reverified mean? weren't they verified to begin with?)

Whether it's WP:CIR or just plain disregard, this editor needs to make a clear commitment to lock away their ChatGPT and throw away the key or else get blocked. Athanelar (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm pretty sure All facts have been reverified means that they (or their AI) double-checked the facts in question to the best of their ability. I don't have knowledge of the topic in question, so I can't be certain whether this is actually true or not though, or if they're aware that AIs can hallucinate. No other opinion from me here. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 14:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I appreciate your understanding.

The subject is a pre-internet era noted Punjabi Author with over 50 published books in many languages and finding citable references was not an easy task. I have tried very hard to double-check and cross-reference all the facts to ensure there are no inaccuracies. Gurdeep Hora (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Support WP:CIR block. Something this brazen probably belongs at WP:AINB instead. guninvalid (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That talk page discussion is the most horrifyingly obvious case of AI slop misuse and incompetence I've seen. BrandNewSaint (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked from Article and Draft space as a provisional measure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for your message.

  I am making a comprehensive note today to address these concerns and explain the context.

  Although a creative writer myself, its my first effort in writing a Wikipedia article and I genuily expect advise guidence to bring all facets of this well-known, pre-internet era writer of 40-50 books to the readers

  Regards

  Gurdeep Hora Gurdeep Hora (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Let me first thank the reviewers for their time.

  As it’s my first attempt at writing an article for Wikipedia, I admit that there may be initial errors in my understanding of some rules and resultant confusion.

  To clear the status, let me comprehensively share the background and context:

  1. The article is about a famous Indian Author with over fifty published books (Novels, Short Story collections, Criticism, Translation of Classics et el) mainly in Punjabi & Hindi. He was awarded for his writings by various literary bodies including Punjab Government, Punjabi Academy etc.

  2. He lived in the pre-internet era, from 1922 to 1993 and hence it was difficult to easily locate contemporary reviews on the net.

  3. While I was fully aware of his literary legacy, still I collected and read physical copies of most of his published books.

  4. The major challenge was to locate, on the internet, ‘citations and references’ that can be referred and verified by the readers.

  5. For this purpose, I spent days searching the net, using numerous sites, tools and apps, in India (and during my stay in Europe) to find reliable sources and cross- verifying facts against multiple references; writing citations, translating extracts from his original books in Punjabi & Hindi into English, etc.

  6. I found numerous- lists and data published by Encyclopaedias, literary bodies like national Sahitya Academy, Punjabi Sahit Academy, Punjab Government Languages department, Library and University catalogues, newspapers etc. - I tried to find links to every reliable fact that I could.

  7. Every fact and citation was verified several times (and I can share extracts, with full context, from direct sources) and written only after ensuring that I have personally cross-verified the original source.

  8. The ‘latest edits’ were made only after that, and no AI tool was used for writing.

  I request you to please reconsider your observations and will be glad to answer all your specific questions.

  Further, I seek guidance and advise from all experienced reviewers to further improve and align the draft with wiki policies Gurdeep Hora (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  So, this doesn't quite read like AI, but it seems like it's ignoring the main question here. The issue is not the subject of the article you have written, but your conduct. Can you please address your obvious repeated use of AI in this discussion? Given that context, it raises concerns that some of the text in diffs such as this may also be AI-generated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well, firstly, let me confirm that there is no AI generated text in the Draft now. I specifically confirm that the latest references of Jeet’s contribution to writing about Partition (which have been flagged) are 100% written by me and are well-supported by independent citations.

  Next, I agree that during the initial stage, I didn’t fully comprehend the questions or intent and so my responses may have sounded vague.

  I, myself, do not like/ use any AI for writing, and my usage of AIs was primarily to “search” accurate “references” on the web which I can cite. Even after that I cross-checked such references with independent primary sources.

  Please advise what else can I do now and the next steps forward. Gurdeep Hora (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Did you use any tool like Grammarly to copyedit your writing? Statements like ...has been widely discussed in academic studies (which only cites a single study) are very common types of puffery for AI to introduce, but less common for human editors.

  It's also interesting that at the start of the "Critical reception" section, there is this statement ; According to The Sikh Encyclopedia, Jeet's fiction drew on settings and characters from diverse cultural backgrounds and explored a range of themes

  Then at the end of the same section, there is this statement; He chose his characters and locales from a pan-India palette and not just Punjab.

  Both of these statements convey exactly the same information and are cited to the same source, but they are written in distinctly different styles of English, and the first glows with AI signs. Either you wrote the same thing on purpose in two different styles in the same section, or the first was spat out or copyedited by an AI tool of some sort and you didn't realise when you wrote the second one that you were repeating information already present in the section.

  I don't think the whole thing is AI generated, because there are clearly two distinct authorial voices in the text; I find it much easier to believe that part of the text was generated or edited by AI than to believe that your writing style changes massively from paragraph to paragraph. Athanelar (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just in case anyone missed this.

  Delete this section before submission. After pasting the article, convert as many items as possible in the citation list into inline references attached to the exact sentences they support. If a reviewer questions print-era sources, explain that the article relies on identifiable published books, journals and newspapers from the pre-internet period, several of which survive only as scans from original printed copies.[emphasis added]
  — Draft:Gurmukh Singh Jeet § Notes for upload in revision 1348412352

  There's also a § Suggested citation list to paste under References section in the same revision. The user didn't even notice this (either of these) until I specifically quoted this section to them. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  ..., I didn’t fully comprehend the questions ...

  You didn't comprehend the question did you use AI? ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  The ongoing inability to give a direct answer to a question is a problem, even if we (irrationally) assume that AI isn't involved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for your time and precise questions. Pointwise responses are as follows:

  1. No. Neither Grammarly nor any other such tools were used.

  2. It is an important and critical distinction of Jeet’s writings. He was a unique Punjabi author of that time who had travelled widely across India and acquired a deep lived-in understanding of different nuances of human psyche, and universality of emotions. Thus he consciously chose characters from different regions of India (e.g. “Hyderabad – novel- Surkhab de Par”, “Kolkata – stories - Tumi Ammar Bandhu & Aye Shala Dakat”, “Pune- award winning novel- Ik Suraj Hore”, and others.

  I can certainly write additional citations here from (1) Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature (2) Revati Sharan Sharma (3) Dr. Maheep Singh (and many others). Will be happy to share the extract here or change citation in the article- if you permit.

  3. Maybe it seems so, because the writing was spread over a long period of time, and locations, while I was travelling through various countries and still unearthing citations from the web.

  4. Let me explain this in context and the fact that it was my first effort to write for Wikipedia:

  a) The confusion arose because I always felt that I was being asked if I used AI as a ‘writing tool’ (while I initially used AI as a search engine for deep internet search about references to Jeet & his books and to counter-verify specific info, recheck citation references etc. – and that was my primary objective). Maybe, somewhere, I made a mistake in pasting my first draft in April. My approach changed totally once he referred me to read different pages from Wiki rules. I have already confirmed that now there is no content written by any AI.

  b) After writing my first draft, I had asked AIs that (although I have read, scanned, got text/pdf of most of the information relied upon), I am having difficulty finding ‘citable references on the web’ because Jeet belonged to the pre-internet era. I did seek help to do deep internet search to locate all such references. For example, I did not find, in India, the reports published in 2012 in Pakistani newspapers Dawn and Tribune about the Goethe Institut selection of Thandi Deewarein for a Partition Anthology and, also the fact that a telefilm based on the story was also made by the noted Director Ehteshamuddin and shown on the opening day of the event. Later, I ‘cross- verified’ this fact from Wikipedia page of Ehteshamuddin. I could get these details only after repeated searches in the UK/ Europe through Google/AIs.

  c) So, the intention was never to dodge answering or use tools for ‘writing” per se. I had clearly replied that “I had used AI tool at an early stage to help structure my first draft” but it was subsequently completely rewritten.

  5. Now that I have explained the entire background/context, I seek your guidance about the next steps, including adding additional citations, rephrase/rewiring the portions that you suggest or any other initiative. ~2026-40555-91 (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:TLDR. You either accept and not use LLMs or you stop editing Wikipedia, or at least the English one. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 08:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  You also need to actually be logged in to respond, otherwise we have no way to determine that this is actually Gurdeep Hora responding. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  As for the original concerns at issue: I am still concerned by the repeat pattern of responding to questions that only require a single word or a single sentence with multi-bulleted responses, as this is both bad practice in itself and possibly indicative of other issues. That having been said, as there has been a commitment to not use AI (and, despite some similarities, I am fairly confident that the most recent responses in this thread are not AI), I think that perhaps be closed with a formal warning and a rescinding of the p-block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks.

  I wish to Edit the draft to address all the balance concerns raised so far (and without any reference to any LLM), please advise if I can Edit & resubmit.

  What steps do I need to follow? Gurdeep Hora (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  First, wait for this thread to reach its conclusion; I've proposed a resolution but am waiting for other editors to say whether they agree. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• SUPPORT: User:Rosguill asked a question, about their AI use in this discussion and in the draft, and they answered something else altogether that too at great length. That is WP:IDHT and its the same evasiveness already flagged on their talk page. There are textbook signs of WP:AIATTR, I take a hard line on WP:LLMDISRUPT, repeated LLM use after being warned is also disruptive. Keep block until there is a direct, specific and most importantly NON-LLM generated reply. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have replied in detail to the question with context ~2026-40555-91 (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I fully appreciate your advice and observations. It being my first article, I took time, but now fully understood the Wiki policies and concerns.

You would have noticed that, in the last few days, I have been honestly trying to answer all the issues raised by you and the other editors. I have shared, in detail, the context as well as remedial steps undertaken.

In fact, on my laptop, I have rewritten all the sections pointed out by the editors and added additional citations.

Will be happy to share these, as you suggest.

Thanks. Gurdeep Hora (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

for Athanelar, I have just replied to your note of 14th - I am not sure if it's showing correctly - Can you please see Gurdeep Hora (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Which note, where? @Gurdeep Hora Athanelar (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

In this discussion ( Athanelar (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)) Gurdeep Hora (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not a link to a discussion, that's a copy of my signature from a comment I made on July 14. Athanelar (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Violations of WP:BLP policy at Talk:Ann Widdecombe

Ann Widdecombe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

U-Mos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Snokalok2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What could very well have been a constructive discussion on the appropriateness of certain categories relating to 'murder' on the article Ann Widdecombe has unfortunately been disrupted by several editors refusing to accept core WP:BLP policy, along with requirements for verifiability and neutrality, along with basic common sense, who seem to think that a talk page is an appropriate substitute for a courtroom, and who seem to lack even the most elementary understanding of the English legal system, and that the talk page is an appropriate place to assert (a) that a murder has taken place (something to be determined at trial, not on Wikipedia), and what is worse, (b) the fact that someone has been charged justifies the categories on the basis that it is "Not really alleged anymore". [114] Given that this declaration of guilt is entirely contrary to WP:BLP policy, I reverted the post, by contributor UKresearcherTV, only to see it restored, first by contributor U-Mos, with no explanation whatsoever, [115] and then, after I reverted it again, by contributor Snokalok2, who at least provided an edit summary, albeit one that likewise seems to be based on the premise that government ministers can pre-empt the courts and declare people guilty. [116] Clearly this violation of policy needs action: at minimum, making it absolutely clear that Wikipedia doesn't determine whether a murder has taken place, the courts do, and more specifically, under no circumstances is it appropriate to assert, or imply, that a suspect - named or otherwise - is guilty of murder prior to conviction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I need you to understand the very simple difference between saying “X person is the killer” (BLP vio), and citing RSP green sources to repeat what those sources say in their own voice - that someone was simply killed, without making any determinations as to who killed her. A court determines if the accused killer is guilty, a court does determine whether someone was killed or not - generally if police have determined something was a killing and RSP say it’s a killing in their own voice, then one can cite those RSP to say it’s a killing on a bloody talk page without you edit-war refactoring.

If that is an unclear distinction for you, I would advocate for a BOOMERANG on grounds of incompetence to edit. Snokalok2 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The police do not make legal determinations. The courts do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The courts determine guilt, but if police say that someone was killed and they never catch the killer, and RSP say that someone was killed, then we are allowed to say it as well. Like how Nicole Brown Simpson was killed even if no one was convicted for it. We still say she was killed, we just don't say that OJ did it because he wasn't convicted of it.

Again, incompetence to edit. I advocate for a full BOOMERANG, as Andy's participation on the talk page has been entirely disruptive in nature. Snokalok2 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You may consider pointing out core Wikipedia policy to be 'disruptive', I doubt you'll get much support for that argument though. As for what the police say, you are well aware I'm sure of the multiple times the police have already had to revise statements they had earlier made regarding this case. It isn't their job to determine whether a crime has taken place. It isn't their job to determine that someone has committed a crime. Their job is to gather evidence, and present it to the courts. This is an elementary principle of English law, and indeed law in most common-law jurisdictions in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

So, apologies in advance, as this is something of a hobby horse of mine, but courts don't actually determine whether a murder has taken place; they determine criminal culpability for actions. What I mean by that is it is entirely coherent to say that I believe O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown despite the fact that he was found not guilty. As to the page in question, I don't think calling it a murder on the talk page falls under WP:BLP. As mentioned, the police have basically said as much. I would not, however, support that being on the main page at this point. That said, I do think that attributing the murder to any living person certainly is a violation of WP:BLP, absent extraordinary circumstances. Just my two cents. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The police do not make legal determinations. The courts do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Murder (aka homicides) is determined by a medical examiner, not the courts. Unsolved murders are still murders even when a case has never gone to court. We follow reliable sources, and if reliable sources refer to something as murder, we call it that. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

We are discussing a death in England, not the United States. We have coroners, not medical examiners. And coroners do not determine whether a person has been murdered or not. As for 'reliable sources', a source that states that someone has been murdered prior to trial is not reliable for that fact, since the courts are the only venue capable of making such a decision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Also even in the US a large percentage of homicides are not murders and few even think they are. Nil Einne (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not responsive to anything I said. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• I did indeed undo AtG removing another editor's talk page comment, in blatant violation of WP:TPO. Sad to see that they have chosen to continue the spurious accusations, insults and straw man arguments here. U-Mos (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Would you support my proposal for a BOOMERANG on grounds of disruptiveness and incompetence? Snokalok2 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I very much doubt that anyone is going to take much notice of calls for a 'boomerang' from involved contributors who seem not to have read either WP:BLP, or WP:TPG: note that the latter explicitly permits removal of "violations of ... living persons ... policies". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Repeatedly declaring a comment you didn't like a BLP violation doesn't make it so. As clearly multiple people disagree with your interpretation, are you planning at any point to explain why you consider this comment so egregious that it justifies removal? U-Mos (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I see no need to explain the obvious. The post was asserting that the individual the police have in custody murdered Ann Widecombe. How else can one possibly interpret it? What else exactly could "Not really alleged anymore" possibly mean? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  The comment argues that Widdecombe was definitely murdered (which I do not agree with, if it needs stating). It does not in any way claim that the suspect is guilty of it. It is not a BLP violation. U-Mos (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I fail to see how else the post could be interpreted. Everything remains an allegation until a trial says otherwise. That's how the law works. And if this wasn't about the individual being held, why does the post mention this at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:BLP trumps WP:TPO and always will. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  True. I strongly disagree that BLP was violated by that comment, so TPO applies. U-Mos (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

This convo revolves good faith disagreements about BLP policy. I think a more appropriate place for this conversation would be WP:BLPN. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, about that: You've also accused people of spamming, threatened to report people who go against you, and are now saying you want to move the discussion to BLPN - all derailing genuine discussion. [117] That's the sort of response I've been getting to pointing out policy. That, and mind-numbing irrelevances about Jack the Ripper in the same post. Not a lot of 'good faith' there. It sees evident, if you look at the thread, that several of the participants were less than keen to have the wider community involved, and would rather cobble together a policy-violating 'consensus' amongst themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

You're correct I did not see that before. I appreciate your willingness to take it to BLPN and am disappointed that a fellow editor interpreted it as an attempt to be disruptive.

That said, I've seen "death" vs "killing" vs "murder" argument a number of times and, in general, it would probably benefit the community to have a wider discussion, but that discussion would probably be better once this current disagreement has died down. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, I have my doubts that many of those involved in the dispute documented above would take much notice of 'wider discussion', given their apparent unwillingness to actually look at the relevant policies. The issue, as I've seen it, is that far too many contributors have a vague idea about general policies towards sourcing etc, but almost none for the specific issues that topics like this involve. Getting people to acknowledge simple things like the inappropriateness of describing a suspect as a 'perpetrator' is exhausting work, and more often than not ends up getting dragged into relentless whataboutisms regarding questionable content in other articles. What is needed isn't so much discussion of policies, but discussion, and then action, centred on getting existing policy enforced. The simple fact is that existing Wikipedia content is riddled with gross WP:BLP violations, and there's almost nothing any one individual can do about it. If I get short-tempered about it sometimes (which I'll freely acknowledge I do) it's because of the frustrations of having to go through the same arguments again and again, coming from people who treat policy as some sort of impediment to editing, best ignored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Anyone who's seen me talk about this knows that I'm a stickler for a strict interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME and even I think that it's obviously the case that whether a murder has happened is not a BLP issue. So, I definitely support a WP:TROUT for Andy for insisting to the contrary.

The "official" guidance for the purpose of Wikipedia is WP:DEATHS, which does indeed suggest waiting for a murder conviction before calling something "murder"... but its reasoning is not BLP, it's that whether a killing is a murder as opposed to, say, manslaughter is only determined when a conviction actually happens. Based on that, I'd also oppose calling this "murder" in the article, but I think it's just ridiculous to remove someone's post on the talk page for, uh, not even saying that they think it's murder or should be called murder but that the police called it murder, a fact they backed up with reliable sources provided in the comment. If Andy keeps on doing this I'd definitely be for a stronger WP:BOOMERANG than just a trout. Loki (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't remove the post because 'the police called it a murder'. They didn't. They said that they had arrested someone "on suspicion of the murder of Widdecombe". A statement that you suspect that someone has done something isn't an assertion that said something had in fact taken place. What I am objecting to is the statement from UKresearcherTV that this was "Not really alleged anymore" - an assertion that the person the police had arrested had in fact murdered Ann Widdecombe. UKresearcherTV was twisting the the Home Secretary's words to imply that she has stated that the suspect being held in fact committed murder. That isn't how the law works. The Home Secretary may or may not know the 'full picture' as UKresearcherTV claimed earlier [118] - I rather doubt she does, since it isn't a part of her job to follow every detail of ongoing police investigations - but either way, she doesn't make rulings. Courts do. Up until then, it is all 'allegations', and trying to argue otherwise on a Wikipedia talk page discussing an ongoing investigation is a violation of policy. In isolation, maybe it could have been ignored, but look at the broader context, where we have contributors making facile arguments like If we want to say Widdecombe was murdered BLP would have no relevance as she is not a living person. [119] The discussion had degenerated into a whole series of refusals to get the point (that it isn't down to Wikipedia to pre-empt the courts) and was turning into an exercise in cherry-picking isolated words in order to 'prove' that the suspect being held had committed murder. That is why I objected to "Not really alleged anymore". AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll say it again even more directly: at no point in that discussion has anyone claimed that the suspect is guilty of Widdecombe's murder. U-Mos (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

So what the heck does "Not really alleged anymore" mean? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

It means RSP, like the one OP put in his comment, say she was killed. The arrested individual didn’t necessarily kill her, and it’d be a BLPVIO at this stage to say that he did - but the RSP OP posted says that someone, somewhere killed her. It’s PERFECTLY REASONABLE for OP to thus say she was killed on a talk page without fear of someone edit war reverting their comments, because that’s what the RSP they cited says. Learn the difference between passive and active voice. Snokalok2 (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thing though, and this is what the courts will decide, is that there is a difference between murder and manslaughter which we should. We can say she was killed, but whether it was intentional or not is still yet to be determined and WP shouldn't be jumping at calling it a murder. Masem (t) 12:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

That's certainly a factor. Though I'd note that as yet there has been no inquest, never mind a trial. People have been using a few isolated instances of unqualified use of the word 'murder' to assert that Widdecombe was in fact intentionally killed, despite the fact that sources have been making it clear that this has yet to be determined. Not that we should need sources for that - it is a matter of law. And it matters while there is an individual facing charges. If there is a trial, whether Widdedcombe was in fact intentionally killed at all might be under dispute (note that for some time the death was being treated as not suspicious) and we shouldn't be pre-empting such a possible defence. Far too many people are making too many assumptions regarding things on which they have no knowledge, and drawing conclusions they shouldn't be. Not on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, but that does not make the opposing view that you removed from the talk page a BLP violation. U-Mos (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Not that we should need sources for that - it is a matter of law. I didn't think this was how Wikipedia worked for anything. Sesquilinear (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I’d argue that the word “murder” is used commonly enough to mean any civil killing without comment on its morality, that we can forgive OP for saying it enough to not repeatedly refactor their comments.

Like if someone says “Murder Nazis” no one is saying “Kill Nazis without justification”, they’re saying “Kill Nazis at their homes with a kitchen knife or something” Snokalok2 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Please take your bizarre analogies somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh you know I’d love to go somewhere else but unfortunately someone decided to open an ANI thread because too many editors disagreed with his refactoring, so now I’m stuck here Snokalok2 (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I would argue that "murder" has a precise definition in English law, including the requirement for malice aforethought. We should not expand its meaning to include sloppy vernacular use. Narky Blert (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Counterpoint - while Wikipedia does use British English on UK pages, that doesn't mean we are bound by UK definitions on talk pages. That is, the UK legal definition of defamation is effectively just "You criticized someone richer than you" but we're not forced to say "So and so factually defamed so an so" on talk just because one is poorer and the other is richer. Snokalok2 (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

We're bound by BLP which is significantly stricter than UK defamation law and does not allow stuff which would not be defamation but which harms living persons, even horrible ones, in unacceptable ways. By any definition saying someone committed murder when we have insufficient confirmation they carried out a murder falls into that territory. And as things stand it's easily possible that this suspect may be convicted of something which is not murder, or even not convicted because they lacked the mental capacity for any crime; but for their to be no doubt they are the only person responsible for the killing. And as I noted below, their identity could be revealed, whether after a conviction or with protections still nominally being in place so their identity currently being unknown is irrelevant. And to be clear, any editor who doesn't accept that BLP is imperative and overrides their weird "free speech" dreams is welcome to leave here and go to X or wherever they want to hang out without such strong protections for living persons. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

You're deeply misunderstanding what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if, say, Prince Andrew sues an Epstein victim for defamation and wins (very likely in the UK system), we are not forced to say on talk that the Epstein victim defamed Prince Andrew. We could still say "So and so did NOT defame Prince Andrew" on talk, and it wouldn't be a BLPVIO. That is, British court rulings are not taken as the decider of whether the sky is blue or not, they only decide who the state found guilty.

I have no idea what you're going on about here, but that was a lot of words to completely miss that point. Snokalok2 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

None of this is about the suspect. Nobody has even named the suspect nor is anyone, as far as I can tell, saying we should. In that context I actually do think "the victim doesn't come under BLP because she's not alive" is the only reasonable response to what you're saying.

The suspect is the only living person here. The suspect's identity is already protected. I don't get who you even think is the living person that would be protected by not calling this a murder. Loki (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The idea that BLP doesn't protect living persons from violations of BLP when their identity is protected but they are clearly specific living individuals who's identity may one day be revealed including when protections are still in place is just bizarre. It's definitely not something in any way supported by any part of WP:BLP and I'd suggest any editor who thinks that way at least limit their editing in areas of BLP where this arises since their understanding of BLP is highly flawed. Note it doesn't matter whether editors agree or disagree the comment itself is harmful. Even if editors feel the comment doesn't cause harm and is not a BLP violation, they should still recognise that a identifiable and specific person is still protected under BLP even when their identity is currently protected. Also BDP will definitely apply to a person who died only a few days ago. Again editors may very well feel this comment doesn't violate BLP for the victim and so it's not a BDP issue but they should still recognise that the victim having died a few days ago doesn't mean BLP doesn't apply to them. Nil Einne (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Even if the name is not reported yet by any news sources, we cannot pretend that certain user groups (what 4chan would used to do) will seek out the name to make sure it is known, even if they are wrong, and that type of name gets drippled into less reliable sourcing as time moves on, so we should never assume that an identity of a suspect of a highly visible crime that is otherwise kept under wraps by RS is completely protected. And thus if we are not careful to assert what the unnamed person on WP has been charged with or what legal status there, and make excessive conclusions beyond what the police and legal experts state, then that's also a problem per BLP. Masem (t) 04:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Even if the name is not reported yet by any news sources, we cannot pretend that certain user groups (what 4chan would used to do) will seek out the name to make sure it is known I mean its already occurring on facebook people are posting images they believe are of the suspect and talking about "social media posts by the suspect" etc. so it probs won't be long before the article is targeted. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

On the original issue:

• The disputed text says that the killing is Not really alleged [murder] anymore. I think this point is wrong (whether there was a murder, a manslaughter, or a killing or death in some other legal category is absolutely not settled).
• The disputed text didn't make any statement about the guilt or innocence of the alleged assailant.
• I don't think AndyTheGrump's point about BLP is completely silly. The material is BLP adjacent, or has BLP implications perhaps. I still think you have to squint pretty hard to see an actual BLP claim about the alleged assailant here. It's at most kind of potentially implied but I don't agree with removal.
• Still, Andy was within rights to revert per WP:BLPREMOVE. I think the people who reverted back should have explained their position when doing so to try and avoid the edit war.
• Andy should then have followed what is written at BLPREMOVE: Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.
• Andy came here asking for this: Clearly this violation of policy needs action: at minimum, making it absolutely clear that Wikipedia doesn't determine whether a murder has taken place, the courts do, and more specifically, under no circumstances is it appropriate to assert, or imply, that a suspect - named or otherwise - is guilty of murder prior to conviction. These are outcomes that could be achieved better at WP:BLPN.

If Andy is still of the conviction that a violation of policy took place, I suggest they do the step they skipped: go to WP:BLPN. If that's what they want to do, then this section be closed without sanctions for anyone. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Surprised I wasn't tagged here. I have no issue with Andy having the view that BLP can be interpreted in such a way that would prevent writing a crime happened until it's been determined by a court of law. However another interpretation, which has been used on many other pages, is that saying a crime has taken place doesn't accuse anyone of being guilty.

I think a discussion could have been had, however after Killuminator attempted to start this discussion, they were immediately stone walled [120]

I don't think any of the editors accused need are in violation of BLP, considering there isn't wide agreement on Andy's interpretation of BLP (as is evidenced by this discussion). It was Andy's replies is why I admittedly had my back up - I'd be happy to move it to BLPN. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion and I didn't see anyone prepared to endorse Andy's removals on the talk page, and that's with everyone agreeing that BLP applies on talk pages. Mackensen (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

In terms of the wider issue, while I don't personally feel that it was necessary to redact it, the comment "Not really alleged anymore" is a borderline BLP violation by UKresearcherTV. While UKresearcherTV can think what they want, we don't give a damn what they think about the crime or perpetrator, any more than we care what I think or any other editor. Therefore their opinion that a minister calling it a murder means it's not alleged any more is irrelevant and unhelpful and not something they should be posting on talk pages. Given it's a borderline BLP violation, I would strongly oppose any action against Andy over redacting that part of UKresearcherTV's comment. I would support action, at a minimum a talk page block but maybe just a topic ban of some sort, for any editor who keeps reinstating the comment. UKresearcherTV should also consider themselves on the thinest of ice and if they continue down their current path, I'd support a broadly construed BLP topic ban. Again, if any editor doesn't want there to be limits on their ability to bring up their own personal opinions about living persons and matters involving them, they should do so somewhere where it's accepted and without our strong BLP protection e.g. X. That our protections apply to any living person no matter how rightfully despised they may be, and they limited what we can say even beyond what is in sources is IMO a key part of BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Most reliable sources have treated the death of Ann Widdecombe as a murder and have used that word, without qualification, for at least a week (see for example The Guardian). That is to say, regardless of when or whether someone is tried and convicted of the murder, reliable sources are saying that she was murdered. A BLP violation would be inappropriately connecting the dots and saying that "X murdered Widdecombe" before such an outcome. Now, maybe you read "not really alleged anymore" as saying that. You could also read it as "no, it's a murder, the police are saying so." The Guardian uses both phrasings, depending on context:

• "A 28-year-old man from Rotherham is being held in custody on suspicion of her murder."
• "Over the weekend, Devon and Cornwall officers went to lengths to reassure the public that the alleged murder did not appear to be politically motivated."

BLPN would have been the place to handle this, if something needed to be handled. I think everyone in this discussion has demonstrated awareness of the BLP protections for persons accused of a crime. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If reliable sources are calling it a murder than arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't is, IMHO, a (rather pernicious) form of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. We follow the sources. Full stop. If someone being accused/convicted of a murder was required for something to be considered a murder there wouldn't be so many "unsolved murder" cases. The BLP policy's protections absolutely apply to someone accused of murder. However they do not apply to "this person was murdered". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

While that sounds great in theory, the reality is that not all alleged murders are treated equally. Man, 28, charged with murder of Ann Widdecombe. We're not saying he did it, but apparently we are able to say "Ann Widdecombe was murdered". If we rewind a few years, I can only imagine the uproar that would have occurred after Former MPD Officer Derek Chauvin In Custody, Charged With Murder In George Floyd's Death we had pre-empted the trial and said "George Floyd was murdered" as soon as charges were filed. FDW777 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

In that case everyone knew the culprit was Chauvin, but not (for sure) that it was an unlawful killing. Calling that killing a murder would have BLP implications.

Here the circumstances are clearly some kind of unlawful killing, but the culprit is unclear. So it's not a BLP issue to call it murder. Loki (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, I think there is a distinction to be made between "murder" in legal terms, "murder" in philosophical terms, and "murder" in common usage.

"Murder" in legal terms means a killing which the state finds unjustified, unreasonable, or particularly malicious - as specifically adjudicated by a process generally relying on written guidelines which can vary *widely* from one jurisdiction to another. "Murder" has a very different definition in South Korea where self-defense with lethal force is always considered murder vs. in Israel where nothing is really considered murder so long as the victim speaks Arabic.

"Murder" in a philosophical sense can vary equally widely, but generally relies upon the premise of being an unnecessary, excessive, or otherwise severely unjustifiable killing. Every kill the Wehrmacht made in the war was philosophically murder, whereas very few kills made by the Red Army could philosophically be considered murder.

"Murder" in a colloquial sense just means, extra-judicial and extra-governmental killing. A Blackwater merc killing local rebels is colloquially murder even if the rebels were armed. A civilian stabbing his loud neighbor is colloquially murder. Snokalok2 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it is correct practice and in line with BLP/BLPCRIME to not definitively state a murder has taken place (including adding categories relating to this) while criminal proceedings are in progress. While details emerging today seem pretty clear where things are heading in terms of how Widdecombe died, even if the medical cause of death was confirmed there is no rush to pre-empt a court verdict. If the proceedings do not result in a conviction, there may still be clear enough information to reliably describe this as a murder a la Jill Dando, but that bridge can be crossed if we come to it. U-Mos (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User not stopping their mass-creation of articles despite community concerns.

Nampong123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been engaged in the creation of a large number of articles on Malaysian constituencies, likely in violation of WP:MASSCREATE (~311 articles since 13 July). On 14 July I asked them politely to slow down and seek community approval for mass-creation of articles, but got no response [121]

On 17 July an AfD discussion was opened to draftify all of the articles, which appears to be heading towards draftification due in large part to sourcing concerns: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kubang Semang (state constituency). Of particular note is this comment [122] Pulling this many articles into draft space for an indefinite period risks turning into a deletion by neglect rather than a genuine improvement. which I think is dis-respectful of the community by expecting others to spend their time fixing their articles as they continue to mass-create them. They also removed the AfD template from articles [123], which normally I would dismiss as inexperience, but I feel I should highlight as it forms part of a pattern of behaviour.

Some of their articles have already been draftified, and the user has submitted them to AfC unchanged, in some cases multiple times after a quick rejection (e.g. [124]). In another case they removed the speedy delete tag from the left-over redirect from one of their articles getting moved to draft space and re-created the article while also submitting the same article to AfC [125][126]

Yesterday I asked them again to stop their article creations [127] but it doesn't appear to have stopped them. At this point its become disruptive. I think the the user is clearly violating WP:MASSCREATE and the community's concerns have been made clear to them through the AfD discussion as well as multiple users draftifying some of their creations, but they just keep piling a bigger and bigger workload on NPP, AfC and whoever has to eventually deal with these articles. The sad thing is if they'd followed the proper process outline in WP:MASSCREATE, after some improvement the articles would likely have been accepted.

Giulio 09:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Question Do we generally create articles on very small sub-national constituencies? These creations would appear to be equivalent to wards in UK county council elections and we definitely don't have articles on those. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Low level electoral divisions, such as wards in the UK are generally not considered notable, however high level ones typically are, (e.g. UK parliamentary constituencies), then there are intermediate levels depending on countries (e.g. US state house districts), for which some articles exist, but which I am not totally clear about and I don't think a clear guideline exists at the moment. In part this is because its impossible to write a concise guideline that covers all countries. I don't know the Malaysian system, but my sense is that these fall closer to US State house districts than UK wards, but this is something that should have been discussed before starting this WP:MASSCREATE effort. Giulio 10:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  (The population of the one on the AFD would (today) be around 40K, which is definitely closer to state house seats than to council wards. ) Morwen (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  In terms of rough equivalence think US state assembly districts (California's 28th State Assembly district) or Scottish parliamentary constituencies (Glasgow Cathcart and Pollok). Whether these or Kubang Semang (state constituency) make good articles is different exercise. CMD (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well, UK parliamentary constituencies are national, not sub-national. There do appear to be many articles about US state districts, which are sub-national, but the ones I looked at are cookie cutter stubs like these Malaysian ones. But yes, this should have been discussed first... Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just to clarify I believe Chipmunkdavis meant Scottish Parliament constituencies (which are subnational for the purposes of this argument) not UK Parliament constituencies which happen to be in Scotland. 11:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Do we generally create articles on very small sub-national constituencies? If they meet GNG, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This user is still creating articles. Port Dickson (state constituency) was created 11 mins ago. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Judging by this, a CIR block may be needed. In solidarity, Miniapolis 22:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Odd reply to the notification. And latest creation (Port Dickson (state constituency)) exemplifies non-notability. Blocked from namespace and invited to reply here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concerns. I understand that my recent rate of article creation has caused concern, and I apologise for not responding earlier.

My intention has been to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Malaysian state constituencies, which I understood to be comparable to other sub-national legislative constituencies that already have standalone articles. For example, articles such as Shahbandar Raya (state constituency) already exist and cover the same type of subject. This led me to believe that Malaysian state constituencies were generally considered suitable for standalone articles, provided they met Wikipedia's content and sourcing requirements. My goal was to expand coverage consistently, not to create unnecessary work for New Page Patrol, AfC, or other editors.

Regarding the ongoing AfD discussion, I respect the community process and will not contest it by continuing to recreate or resubmit articles that are under discussion. My removal of the AfD template was a mistake on my part, and I now understand that it should not have been removed.

I also acknowledge the concerns about mass creation. I was working through a dataset systematically and did not realise that my editing pace itself had become disruptive. I believe that the source from https://electiondata.my are valid are trustable as a primary source.

If the preferred process is to seek consensus first, improve a smaller sample of articles, or work in draft space before creating additional articles, I am happy to follow that process. I am also willing to improve the existing articles by adding more independent sources, expanding the prose, and addressing the issues raised during the AfD discussions.

My intention has always been to contribute constructively and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Malaysian elections and constituencies. I appreciate the feedback from everyone involved and will work within the community's expectations going forward. Nampong123 (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Your comment obviously is generated by a large language model. We normally ignore such (WP:AITALK). In an LLM-generated comment, it’s hard to know what you really are thinking versus what the LLM has written on its own. However, in an effort to get you started down the right path, I’m going to reply to some errors and misconceptions in your generated comment on the assumption that those might represent your own ideas as well. If you want to get unblocked, you’re going to have to reply in your own words and satisfy us that unblocking is appropriate.

1. Just because other sub-national legislative constituencies have articles doesn’t automatically mean any such article is appropriate. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.

2. For an article to be acceptable, the subject must be notable. This generally means that it must have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. See WP:GNG. A database is a primary source: existence in a database does nothing to show that it is suitable for an article.

3. Given the notability issues listed above, going through a database and adding articles based on database entries is not appropriate. You must first find appropriate sources establishing notability before starting an article on a constituency.

Your efforts may be better spent in working on other articles that meet your interest. Your ability to read a language other than English gives you an advantage there, as most of us cannot read sources written in your country’s language.

However, you must demonstrate sufficient ability in English to understand Wikipedia policies and communicate with other editors. (And don’t use AI to tell you what the policies say: AIs are awful at interpreting policies.) If you are unable to communicate in English and understand policies written in English, you should think about contributing to a Wikipedia in a language you do understand. There are many, and they would appreciate your help. See List of Wikipedias. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

1. That's why I referenced Shahbandar Raya (state constituency) as example earlier. Based on my experience improving the national legislative constituencies, I added information such as historical boundaries and past election data to make the article more meaningful. You may refer to this article :Perlis Utara.
2. The primary sources is backed up by a few secondary source such as article, thesis and book. I may upload it once I have the access, but let me prioritize with other article with need improvement first since a new election cycle started recently from 2025 Sabah state election, 2026 Johor state election, 2026 Negeri Sembilan state election, and other state elections.
3. Same answer as point 2.
4. Just to clarify, the usage of AI is not the same as not understanding English. I want to make sure my message can be delivered correctly.

Nampong123 (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

(The reply below is 100% without using LLM)

1. Back to point 1, I wish to implement the same style of the article at the main historical national legislative constituencies at the historical state level constituencies, that's why I created an article first.
2. For point 4, I understand the theory of LLM, but my intention of using LLM is to ensure my message can understand by everyone and I believe that the usage of LLM is a complement on writing an article.

Nampong123 (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models: the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited.

You can't do it. You can use LLM for correcting spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and other simple mistakes, but not to write or rewrite your text.

You can't write an article without using reliable secondary sources. If you don't have any when you start writing an article, you're doing it all backwards, and potentially wasting everyone's time, considering how unlikely it is that you'll later find appropriate references for many of those constituencies. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

1. I'm not using LLM to write an article, I used LLM to reply your message to fix my simple mistakes. (No intention to argue here).
2. I have a secondary sources. How can I add the reference but my access blocked

Nampong123 (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I already replied 3 questions above. You may reply if you still have questions. Nampong123 (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Why then did Paya (state constituency) (July 2026), the first in the batch of rapid creations you did, have a maintenance tag dated to 2022 when it was created? This is a common thing for LLMs to do (ie. hallucinate), and something I've never seen a human do Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

They probably used an article like Kaki Bukit (state constituency) as a template, which has a legitimate 2022 citations template. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

At the first moment, I didn't realise that's a tag, however I removed it shortly. Paya (state constituency). No LLMs used during article creation, I just use other article as a template, then I change the content manually. Nampong123 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Source:

1. https://electiondata.my/
2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-06502-7
3. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24211
4. Abdullah, Z. G., Adnan, H. N., & Lee, K. H. (1997). Malaysia, tokoh dulu dan kini = Malaysian personalities, past and present. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Malaya.
5. Anzagain Sdn. Bhd. (2004). Almanak keputusan pilihan raya umum: Parlimen & Dewan Undangan Negeri, 1959-1999. Shah Alam, Selangor: Anzagain.
6. Hanna, W. A. (1959). Elections in Malaya: A report. New York: American Universities Field Staff.
7. Hussain, M. (1987). Membangun demokrasi: Pilihanraya di Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Karya Bistari.
8. Surohanjaya Pilehanraya Malaysia. (1959). Penyata pilehanraya-pilehanraya umum parlimen (Dewan Ra'ayat) dan dewan-dewan negeri, tahun 1959 bagi negeri-negeri Tanah Melayu. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Chetak Kerajaan.
9. https://mysprsemak.spr.gov.my/semakan/keputusan I already provided the relevant sources to fullfill your requirement on the secondary source.

Nampong123 (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

10. https://www.scribd.com/doc/96706353/250-penyata-Pru-1969

11. https://www.scribd.com/doc/39877213/keputusan-pilihanraya-umum-2004

12. https://www.geocities.ws/hualian_studentclub/pilihanraya/

13. https://github.com/TindakMalaysia/HISTORICAL-ELECTION-RESULTS/tree/main Nampong123 (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You have lots of evidence that the elections took place and that the results are correct. That's not the issue. The issue is whether there was in depth secondary coverage. Read about secondary sources in WP:SECONDARY. Additionally, the coverage must be in-depth about the subject of the article: if you're writing an article about all the constituencies, a general article would work, but for a specific constituency there must be in depth secondary coverage about the constituency.

Additionally, listing lots of references is not useful: finding a couple that are in-depth secondary sources is.

Because of the mass nature of your creations I am very hesitant to unblock you until there is concrete evidence that you've learned how to produce articles suitable for Wikipedia. I suggest you create a new constituency article in draft space and submit it through Articles for creation. Once you demonstrate that your submissions are appropriate and won't flood wikipedia with non-notable articles, I'd be more likely to unblock.

If you disagree, you can make an unblock request on your talk page. Just follow the unblock request instructions in the block notice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I create a new draft article Draft:Kudat (state constituency). Please have a look and it contain the secondary sources you want. Nampong123 (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Nampong123 needs to slow down by a lot. As has already been suggested, they need to add reliable sources (with significant and independent coverage in each source) along with the article. This flooding the zone with non-notable material does not work. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Well, I've got unfortunate news y'all; I've checkuser blocked Nampong123 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PPP001; they're a sock of someone who's been blocked for a while. They also just created a new account to get around the partial block with User:LHY1226, also now blocked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Moneytrees First of all good job! Second, this is actually a relief. Third, I am surprised, even though I should not be. Maybe I should have realized it was a sock in the first place. Oh well. Live and learn. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are a boatload of pages created by this user. I've deleted about 500 so far that didn't have significant contributions by other editors, and that only goes back 90 days (as far as massdelete allows). I'd be grateful for assistance in identifying and deleting other pages eligible for G5. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  rsjaffe Thanks for letting me (or us) know. I want to help. I can't at the moment. I will get back to you on your talk page. Or do you prefer to deal with this here? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Best thing to do for interested parties is to review the pages still existing that were created by Nampong123 and tag those that don't have significant edits by other users for G5, creations by a blocked user (PPP001) and let them go through the usual process. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Happy to contribute once I'm back to my computer in a couple of days if this doesn't get cleared up before then Giulio 22:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've looked some more. The user had ~23,000 edits, so there's a lot to review. However, the older the article, the less likely it qualifies for G5, as it is more likely to have had significant contributions from another editor. So caution is needed when tagging, and concentrating on the more recent article creations is a good tactic.

  WP:BLOCKREVERT is useful reading for those who might look at rolling back edits by this user other than page creations. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  OK. Thanks for the tips on the best way to approach this problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Another supposed helpful editor came to the templated section on Nampong123's talk page and stated that they will restore some of the deleted edits [128]. I noticed in their contributions that they have at least started to do so [129]. I have them a note warning them not to do so.[130] Y'all my want to check the restorations that this oh-so-helpful editor did. I am guessing they are also a sock of Nampong123 and User:PPP001. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  ...seriously? I just saw the first page which is completely outdated when I searched on Google, and reinstated back the updated version. What's with the sarcasm and accusatory tone? Syn73 (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  For reference (copied from talk ): I just selectively undo only a few edits that are related to the Malaysian government's information, which becomes outdated due to the mass rollback. They are non-disruptive and I've checked them. Also I don't see how our editing style have any similarity at all. Maybe because we're both Malaysians so the tone seems similar? Syn73 (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Royalrumblebee, UPE and LLM isue

Noting this is at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Royalrumblebee._Likely_undisclosed_COI/UPE_across_37_biographies (thank you @Kqol!) but like many reports there it languishes due to a lack of bandwidth. @Royalrumblebee has continued their LLM promotion across a variety of AfDs including querying I want to know why three "Keeps" and two "Delete" votes did not lead directly to a "Keep" vote and LLM tags from their own creations. I would have likely blocked from article space already at this stage but the issues are in many AfDs as well. So we'd need a dual partial block and I consider myself potentially Involved due to the AfD clerking. So bringing it here for a broader discussion. @Kqol you also mentioned an SPI. Not sure if you filed as I didn't find it. Thanks all. Star Mississippi 13:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

does this case need to be filed at AINB? ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star MississippiWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obinnanduka. Apologies for the delay - took longer than expected to pin down. I'll keep digging. Kqol • talk 21:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Sorry to bother you again...

Update: Jeff Unaegbu — the person Royalrumblebee said he works for, edited on 20 July 2026 (for the first time since 2011) his own pages, and removed a 2011 sock puppetry block notice from his talk (diff). It pointed to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeff Unaegbu: he was CU-confirmed twice back then, once for creating an account to write the article about himself, once for stacking its AfD with new accounts. Same patterns. Kqol • talk 21:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay @Kqol

I'll drop this in the SPI as the recent edits should make him not stale Star Mississippi 01:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

User using AI in discussions.

Haddad Maia fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently got involved in a couple of AFD's and someone pointed out that during the course of them a contributor appears to have been using AI to write their posts in the AFD. The AFD's in question can be found here and here. The user in question is the creator of the nominated articles and has been warned about the use of the AI on their talk page. They didn't react to that message and subsequent posts in one of the AFD's look very much to have been written through AI. A check through some dedicated tool flags them as very likely AI generated. Since this is not allowed per Wikipedia policy I have decided to raise this with the administrators here.Tvx1 18:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

a quick glance at some of their drafts [131] [132] have revealed some stuff like AILEGACY, SUPERFICIAL, RO3 (this is since the beginning of their edits on wikipedia), i'm going to file a AINB, but this is a really sizable case ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

CRESSPOM was created with 3 red-linked (ie. potentially hallucinated) templates, including a maintenance tag. Mostra tua força Brasil had/has plenty of WP:AIVOCAB like emphasized, shaped, highlighted etc and WP:SUPERFICIAL. Also see Luciana Mariano (sports journalist), Luiza Fullana, and Magali Fernandes. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

What makes you think Haddad Maia fan is using AI? I ran it through an AI detector, and it came up with nothing. Idacticus (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Automated detectors aren't very accurate (WP:GPTZERO), people mostly use WP:AISIGNS Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

LLM detection tools are usually unreliable, we go through the list of WP:AISIGNS and WP:AICOMMENTS to check for the usual signs of LLM text

when i say stuff like AILEGACY, i mean the section on the essay "signs of ai writing" titled "Undue emphasis on significance, legacy, and broader trends" and so on ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Multiple users stating in one of the AFD’s that they did, the subsequent warning on their user page and the comments by others here that they did. Moreover I checked these posts myself using the relevant tools and they all came up with them being likely written by AI, so I think the problem lies with your detector. Moreover, I’ve been interacting with the user at the tennis WikiProject for a couple of years now and their sudden jump in English language proficiency is just abnormal. They really struggled in their original interactions in the project. Tvx1 19:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tvx1: please remember to notify the editor about this discussion, like it says on the top of the ANI page. I've done it for you. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I had already done so.Tvx1 20:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that, even though I looked for it. Sorry about that, I thought you had forgotten about it or something. I prefer broccoli over trouts. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• There is a bit of a problem that Haddad Maia fan seems to be using AI to generate responses in lucid English in talk page discussions (English is not his/her native language). There are two reasons this is a problem. (1) It is difficult to know how much of what he/she writes is what he/she thinks. (2) Haddad Maia fan has genuine and useful knowledge about the subject matter, and his/her use of AI causes other editors not to value his/her comments.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  People shouldn't be editing on wikis whose language they're not proficient in (nor translating from such a language). Maybe we could ask someone else whether they could translate some of their work from another wiki? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  They frequently do. In a few cases, they add a lot of value because they find sources in their own language that enable articles to be corrected or improved - but it is a problem if they use AI to write in English, because we do not know how much is real and how much is hallucinated.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is that with what has transpired through these investigations, we don't even know whether the source gathering was done by the editor themself or through AI. Also note the complete lack of any reaction of defense from this user to the post on their talk page and here at the threads on the noticeboards.Tvx1 14:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for notifying me about this discussion. I only became aware of it recently, which is why I hadn’t replied before.

  I understand why some editors have concerns, and I would like to give them a response.

  First, I never tried to mislead or deceive anyone or add inaccurate information to Wikipedia.

  Most of my editing has been on topics related to tennis of which I have spent a lot of time on looking for reliable sources on the Portuguese language, that were not already being used on the English Wikipedia, because that is my primary language.

  As I said, English is not my native language, and sometimes I have used writing tools to help me express myself more clearly.

  I can see why that might have raised questions, especially in discussions.

  However, the opinions I express are always my own. I do not post arguments that I do not understand or agree with and always read everything before posting.

  If my way of writing created any type of confusion or made other editors question what I was commenting, I totally regret that. I never had this as my intention.

  I also understand the concern about accuracy of what I wrote.

  If anyone has specific examples of mistakes, incorrect sourcing, or anything that should be corrected, I am happy to look at them and fix everything.

  I have no interest in keeping incorrect information in articles, and when something I wrote in the past was tagged to be in need of a revision, I always tried my best to do so and improve the article.

  So, going forward, I will write my own comments in simpler English if that is judged to be the best, even if they are less polished. I would rather be understood as myself than give the impression that someone else or a machine is speaking for me.

  I hope my contribution is also taken into consideration. I always have tried to improve articles by finding reliable sources that most of the time could be difficult for English speaking editors to access or understand, and I like to continue contributing in a way that follows the community’s expectations.

  If there are particular practices the community expects me to follow regarding writing assistance, I am open to do that. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry to ask, but was this comment translated into English from your native language? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, I wrote everything without the use of translations, just with my personal language knowledge Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Your English is great then, certainly good enough to write content. Thank you for replying here.

  I'm sorry to say this but would it be possible for you to go back and cleanup any edits and articles for which you used LLMs? It's usually recommended to stubbify or rewrite LLM-generated articles/text as it often takes a lot of time to clean it up while trying to preserve it, especially at this sort of scale. The biggest problem with LLM-generated text is hallucinations which mean that the content is not completely supported by the source cited (WP:V), though there are other serious concerns like WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV/WP:WTW. I know that's a big ask, but otherwise someone would have to delete/remove your past contributions (in this case from around 28 October 2024 to just before this discussion, see WP:LLMPRV).In case you need any help with this, feel free to ask at WP:AINB#Haddad Maia fan, and I'm sure people would be happy to. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  No hard feelings. In fact, thank you for pointing that out. I will do my best to improve going forward and be more careful with my editing process. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  As I was a bit suspicious since the interactions I had with this user when they first started editing and discussing at WP:Tennis showed a far inferior level of English, I put Haddad Maia fan's above post through the Pangram AI detector, which is one of the few generally reliable ones according to the sources in WP:GPTZero, and it returned as 100% written by AI. And even without using an AI detector, there are clear WP:AISIGNS like WP:AIASSURE and WP:AIUNSURE in that comment. This really makes me struggle to believe in this user's sincerity.Tvx1 15:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Apparently concerns that this user had been using AI/LLM for their edits and talk page comments had already been voiced in places like this older AfD or talk page discussions like here and there already was a warning on their talk page regarding AI usage following one of their earliest identified such edit. All of which they ignored.Tvx1 16:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Continued COPYVIO after multiple warnings

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

---

• Wengier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)

This editor has been warned about WP:COPYVIO multiple times on their talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4. Most recently, this editor appears to have done a machine translation of this article and then copy-pasted its final paragraph into the article New Qing History in this diff. This was after being warned about this being a potential WP:COPYVIO in detail here. After four copyright warnings, this probably merits a look by others. - Amigao (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The above claim was largely false. There is a content dispute in the said article today. However, the dispute was caused by User:Amigao who did a significant change to the article today, including adding and removing existing (cited) contents from the said article. I tried to balance his modifications and added some cited text, and I largely translated the text myself with inline citations, instead of copy-pasting. He accused me of copyvio, which is false for this case. In fact, any copyvio accusations that happened was over at least a year ago, but that was completely different since learnt from that and no longer do any copy-pasting for articles and instead largely translated the text myself. --Wengier (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Whether the text in question was machine-translated or human-translated, it cannot be pasted into an article verbatim and without WP:INTEXT as Wengier initially did in this diff and then again in this diff after being warned. Also, anyone can do a machine translation of this op-ed and see how closely the final paragraph matches the text of these two diffs. Amigao (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I added to the page with my translation, trying to be as faith as possible, in the hope to prevent deviating from the original meaning. However, your initial reactions were not about translations at all, but instead asking for things like "according to who"[133], even if they were very clearly stated in the cited references. You clearly did not read the sources when you did this. Then I added more information such as who said such things as you requested,[134] but you continued to remove cited contents. Anyway, I tried to use the cited content as faith as possible, but it was not a copy-paste. There is no problem we reword it even further, but it is certainly not a good idea to completely remove the cited contents. --Wengier (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Wengier, that diff brought here by Amigao was a copyright violation. Read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. If you keep doing this, you will be blocked from editing articles. Fences&Windows 18:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but unlike any previous accusations (happened over at least a year ago), this time it involved translation from another language. But from now on I will make sure the paraphrasing will be different enough even when it involves translations from a non-English language. Thanks for pointing this out. --Wengier (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:FIXCLOSEPARA has useful practical advice on avoiding close paraphrasing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User still editing ECP area after warnings and extended ANI report

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

---

AnonLionCavalier83 was already warned against editing ECP area regarding Indian military related topics,[135] and he even went through an extended ANI where he was close to being topic banned.[136] However, he is still editing this area and ignoring the warnings.[137] THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Wait! You can't write on talk pages?? I thought the restriction only applied the pages itself? ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

No, this isn't an ECP violation.

Below the warning given it states this:

Non-ECP editors can only make edit requests in the talk page of articles which fall under WP:CT/CASTE and WP:CT/IMH. Bajrang Dal falls under the latter. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It was not an edit request but a talk page discussion which you started. Non-ECP editors are not allowed to make them in Indian military topics. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It was an edit request. I stated I suggest that the source be removed as well as the sentences made using this as a reference as an edit request. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

"Edit request" here means "Please change <x> to <y> (per <z> source)". Anything more extensive than that or that would otherwise require a talk page discussion is forbidden to non-XC users. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 03:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yikes, my bad. Will keep that in mind.

Right now, I have more than 500 edits so this will not be a issue again. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

And I'm retired from editing. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

So a quick explanation why I did it, basically the Kuki national army is somewhat relevant right now due to the Manipur conflict and I noticed that a source used here was a far-right source associated with a fascist paramilitary group. So I logged into this retired account (Just to be clear, this is my only account) and I wrote about it in the talk page. I made the mistake of not using the "change X to Y" template and instead writing "I suggest that the source be removed as well as the sentences made using this as a reference". That's pretty the problem here. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

PS. Saying "change Y to X" was time consuming for me at that time which why I stated to just remove the source. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

At minimum, I would request removal of ECP from your account which you have now gained but from mainly editing Indian military history. That would be enough. No topic ban or block would be needed after that. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:53, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree with this and have no issues with it. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I have removed extended confirmed from your account. This means you must not edit in any areas requiring extended confirmed status (500 edits/30 days). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

That's okay. I'm a retired user so I wouldn't edit Wikipedia too much or at all. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

If you do come back and eventually accumulate significantly more edits, you can apply for extended confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks a lot for the tip. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment Isn't there some way to make it impossible for non-EC editors to make edits to these talk pages unless they click a "request an edit" button? The entire point of ECP is to restrict non-EC editors from being capable of editing certain pages; not to punish new users for making edits that they're not blocked from making. It really is unproductive to expect new users to perfectly jump through the correct beaurocratic hoops then penalize them when they fail. ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

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

​Disruptive cross-page edit warring and suspected block evasion by User:HotChickenParmesan

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

---

Posting per request by User:aesurias on user talk.

1. **Account Age:** User:HotChickenParmesan is a new account, created on 24 May 2026.

2. **Prior SPI Context:** The Raghav Chadha article recently had a confirmed SPI case where master user User:DisconsolatePutz used multiple IP-linked sockpuppets (`~2026-25367-79`, `~2026-28954-01`, and `~2026-29053-74`) before receiving an indefinite block.

3. **Exact Lead Quote Re-insertion:** User:HotChickenParmesan re-inserted the exact same contested lead quote (*"party of illiterate goons"*) on Raghav Chadha that was removed per Talk page consensus (later reverted by admin Ponyo). Immediately upon creation, they posted an aggressive message on User Talk:Shakya2007 alleging WP:OWN and referencing old disputes—a direct behavioral match.

4. **Active Cross-Page Disruption:** They are currently edit-warring on Dharmendra Pradhan, forcing contested material into the lead section over the objections of CodeTalker (reverting CodeTalker at 05:31, 22 July).

Given the new account age, active cross-page edit-warring in lead sections, and behavioral match to a recently blocked sockmaster, could an administrator please review for block evasion or disruptive editing?

Pinging aesurias (talk · contribs) per request. Thanks. ~2026-40904-06 (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Obscenely frivolous accusations lacking any merit. Furthermore, the fact that you are using a temporary account, which had no activity or history prior to this ANI post [138], makes it even more suspicious. You previously chose to air your grievances by writing this AI-generated diatribe against me on an administrator's page until they redirected you, which makes me believe you deliberately did so in the hopes of having a private lament heard and acted upon without any scrutiny (not that any admin would've obliged you).

Having said that, let me address this.

A) How is my account age relevant?

B) I am not a sockpuppet. My contribution to the page titled "Raghav Chadha" wasn't even my first, contrary to what you falsely claim. Can be corroborated here [139]. I started off by contributing to pages dedicated to Soviet history, medieval-era revolts, civil rights organisations in the US, and the erstwhile members of the Indian royalty. As for the observation that I left an "aggressive" post on Shakya2007's page, perhaps consider checking the page's history? Yes, I reinstated the content which was once written by the user in question, but that doesn't imply I am associated with them.

There was NO CONSENSUS for the removal of information Shakya2007 claims was undertaken via consensus, which can be checked here. The said user proposed removing a remark critical of the page's subject, a proposal seconded by a TA titled "2026-26106-93" (curiously though, just like your account, it only made edits to Raghav Chadha, totalling 4, whereupon it ceased operating altogether). This TA's "contributions", if any, can be checked here [140]. There was no consensus, and I reinstated the said content on several occasions. Shakya2007, an admitted "supporter" of the same party (BJP) as that of Raghav Chadha (a badge on their user page attests to this [141]), had a prolonged editorial dispute with me, which was eventually resolved amicably. The question became moot as I reached out to them and we agreed to bury the hatchet, which can be independently verified here [142]. Since you seem to be adamantly keen on depicting my "aggression", perhaps do us a favour and also include my conciliatory gesture? I am curious: why did you omit that from your AI-generated lament?

The page still retains the version Shakya2007 prefers, FYI.

C) Re your AI-generated point (4), are you serious? Are you genuinely referring to that as an edit war? CodeTalker and I are not involved in any edit war, which can be instantly verified here [143].

Lastly, do you mind telling us why you created a TA to post this AI-generated accusation? Are you associated with any current account on Wikipedia? You created an account today with the sole purpose of penning this post on ANI. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

This is an AI generated post, and I'd like to re-iterate that HotChickenParmesan makes a great point here, creating a TA just to make this post makes it seem as if you are the one who should be reported or blocked from Wikipedia. I say boomerang this post and block the TA. Also, this may be a sock-puppet per evidence below. shane (talk to me if you want!) 11:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

~2026-40904-06 (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-40904-06 Don't use AI, you also must notify all parties on their page that they have been brought to ANI. – LuniZunie_(talk) 06:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I have done so for you. – LuniZunie_(talk) 06:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I Understand. The diffs and points provided are my own observations regarding the edit warring on Raghav Chadha and Dharmendra Pradhan pages. ~2026-40904-06 (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Why can't you write up your observations and points yourself then rather han having an AI write it for you? Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

While I don't appreciate the AI usage, I did look at User talk:DisconsolatePutz and all I can hear is "quack, quack, quack".

Some of DisconsolatePutz's replies:

• "Be advised that I am bound by the editorial strictures of Wikipedia, and consequently, I do not believe I am in breach of any terms governing edits to pages. Apropos the content I modified, be advised that none of it constitutes my personal opinion, for such developments are already clarified and established. She works as a presenter for a US Government-funded broadcaster, something I punctiliously lodged on that page considering the fact that her views/opinions might be colored or distorted owing to the jingoistic aspirations of the US State Department. Refrain from undoing my edits, thanks."
• "Refer to the aforementioned note of mine on the maelstrom. This has nothing to do with intellectual disagreements, but rather, an established fact that pays no obeisance to any ideological leaning. Thanks."

Some of HCP's replies:

• "Yet again, your presuppositions are remarkably unfounded. You somehow concluded this is my maiden tryst with Wikipedia? I have dabbled with Wikipedia extensively in the past, almost a decade ago or so. Classic instance of appeal to authority. It's amusing how you have consistently lambasted my editorial contributions without even adjudicating them holistically. Did you even bother checking the diffs? Did you see the current live version of the page?"
• "Demonstrably false. I'm not sure why you keep insisting I have a fervent penchant for post-1978 Iranian topics when my contributions are far more eclectic and innumerable. My contributions range from topics such as Soviet and allied history, infrastructure, Indian pages (primarily infrastructure and the like given the propensity of India-centric pages to be peppered with grammatical faux pas), to the nobility in India and Goan colonisation of the subcontinent."

(Emphasis is mine.)

I would like @HotChickenParmesan to explain why their edit is so similar to this edit from a blocked sockpuppet. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I should also note that many of DisconsolatePutz's puppets (these in particular) spent time removing "royal" titles, a favourite pastime of HCP when they first began editing --> "Restored the neutral variant. Titles do not exist, and the subject did not "succeed" his father well after the enactment of the 26th Amendment.", "The person in question is not a "queen".", "Removed titles from the page as the 26th amendment to the Indian Constitution recognised no such privileges." aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias I pored through the page of Raghav Chadha when news of his defection was doing the rounds in Indian-centric television. Upon noticing the edit history with wide variance in the opinions of editors on the inclusion of a specific remark made by him (highly critical of the same party he defected to, amidst much brouhaha and people highlighting that repeatedly on social networking sites as an instance of his hypocrisy), I felt it was necessary to include that in the lede to highlight the volte-face. You would agree that if, say, a hypothetical page existed for a formerly rabidly racist member of the KKK suddenly having a change of heart and becoming an abolitionist, one would highlight that in the lede, right? That was my reasoning when I took that specific contribution of what I now realise was a sockpuppet and injected that back into the page. Regardless, I eventually buckled since I did not wish to participate in an edit war, and the tiff was mutually resolved. The current version of the page reflects that.

As to the question of removing royal titles from the pages dedicated to members of the erstwhile royal families, I have repeatedly stated I have a knack for Rajputana history owing to that territory being the principal bulwark on the western frontiers of the Indian subcontinent, braving conquerors from the west. When I noticed that the pages of members dedicated to the descendants of princely families are graced with titles that have no consonance with law or any statute (nor are they recognised, nor do they exist), I proceeded to remove them. This sparked the desire to do the same for other pages too, whereupon I went off on a quest. Having said that, this has not been my primary activity on Wikipedia, and can be independently verified.

The sock's activity has no bearing on mine, now that I have gone through their history. They seem to be obsessed with the Aga Khans and removing titles from their pages (how legitimate such an endeavour is is something I shan't comment on right now). I did so for the descendants of kings in India, who are not allowed to bear any titles, and the law reflects as such. Merely because they (the sock) removed titles does not imply I am them in any capacity, although I do understand why you might find that suspicious. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems HotChickenParmesan attempted to bypass WP:3RR by logging out and making their 4th revert through a temporary account [144] (see previous reverts here [145] [146] [147]). However, this just gave them away. The account geolocates [148] to the same location as DisconsolatePutz's temporary account [149], and as proven up above, edits like DisconsolatePutz, and even writes like them. Also, HotchickenParmesan created their account on 24 May 2026, just 11 days after the latest socks of DisconsolatePutz were blocked [150]. This is clear WP:BLOCKEVASION. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

While I have made it abundantly clear that I have no interest in talking or engaging with you, I do find your fixation with me disconcerting. If you think I deliberately "logged out" to make a fourth revert, then maybe consider imputing that to something other than malice? I am sure you won't, given your history of harassing me persistently. While I am not obligated to respond to you (a stalker), I shall, given the seriousness of the frivolous accusations you keep hurling at me.

Since this morning, when I log into my account, it signs me out intermittently whenever I try to make an edit. Something to the effect of a "session state" error occurs each time I commit an edit or when I switch from one page to another. Any Wikipedia tech personnel can attest to this (not you). I checked that this is a documented problem a few other users have faced in the past. You would be incredibly harebrained to believe I would log out to make another edit via a TA just to prove a point, knowing incredibly well my IP address and other identifiers are being tracked.

Lastly, calling that an edit war is yet another patent lie of yours. The user keeps removing an otherwise objective term to describe a historical event, claiming that the "Latvian media" does not prefer that word, and that using an objective term somehow "aligns" with the Soviet version of history. The last I checked, we don't go by the personal idiosyncrasies of an entity/person. You tried schooling me on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the past; maybe apply it to yourself for once?

You are a very resentful and vindictive person, and it shows. This isn't nearly the "gotcha" that you think it is. Get a life. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

using an objective term somehow "aligns" with the Soviet version of history

It's unclear from the provided link; could you elaborate, that claim of it being an objective term is not an example of the personal idiosyncrasies of some entity/person? ~2026-41341-45 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran it's also abundantly hilarious how you think everyone, but you, is stupid, that they will lap up the juvenile claim I would log out deliberately to edit with malice, that I did so to "hide" my identity while restoring a page. Even the most mediocre networking student knows that even if you change your username, your IP address (which remains unchanged) is logged when undertaking any activity on Wikipedia. I have reasons to believe you are the person who wrote this ANI post to get back at me, given how you previously failed to actualise your desire, and the fact you persistently stalk me, as evidenced by you repeatedly featuring on my edit page, even though I have made it abundantly clear you are not welcome. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

More personal attacks, which you were recently blocked for [151]. So, when taken all together; violation of WP:3RR, violation of WP:NPA, violation of your topic ban, and by POV pushing a that [152], and blatant WP:BLOCKEVASION. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to cry me a river. You have a documented history of stalking people and curating a narrative. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

HotChickenParmesan I would strongly recommend you strike that particular personal attack. With that, your "get a life" comment and an unevidenced claim of sockpuppetry, you are very close to being blocked. If any passing admin thinks I am being too lenient here, feel free to take action. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

(passing non-admin comment) You are a very resentful and vindictive person, and it shows. Not to mention another patent lie of yours. Yuck .Narky Blert (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Your juvenile ad hominem aside, I suggest you touch grass and not fume at the objective and correct description of events. This isn't a forum to distort history or inject your personal grievances against any state/polity. ~2026-41341-45 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It's quite a bold move to call HistoryofIran's claim that you were WP:LOUTSOCKing a "hilarious" and "juvenile claim", and then make the exact same accusation against them in the same paragraph. The difference being that HOI provided evidence for your LOUTSOCKing, while you provided none, except a vague claim that you have "reasons to believe". Such an accusation without evidence is a personal attack, and you had best either exhibit those reasons, or retract the claim. CodeTalker (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

DisconsolatePutz/HotChickenParmesan has had their fun. The socking is proven to my satisfaction, so I've indeffed them and their TA. Same ISP and geolocation as DisconsolatePutz's blocked TA and they made the same edit to Raghav Chadha. That's before we even get to the personal attacks and battleground behaviour. I've logged it at SPI. I've warned the OP for LLM talk use. Fences&Windows 19:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Gang stalking article: what to do?

• Gang stalking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As soon as the protection expired the disruption resumed. Asking here rather than at WP:RFPP because I would like to discuss what the best way to handle this is. Semi? Pending Changes?

Related:

• Gang stalking#Online communities
• Electronic harassment#Support and advocacy communities

As Corey Doctorow pointed out at [153][154]

"The internet era has profoundly changed the nature of delusion, by connecting people with the same delusions to one another, in order to reinforce each other.

Take 'gang stalking delusion,' the traumatic belief that a vast cabal of powerful, coordinated actors have selected a group of 'targeted individuals' to harass. People with gang stalking delusion will sometimes insist that passing bus-ads, snatches of overheard music, and other random/ambient details are actually targeted at them, intended to bring them distress:[155]

The 'targeted individuals' suffering from gang stalking delusion have formed vast, sprawling communities that are notionally designed to support them through the trauma of being stalked. But the practical function of these communities is to reinforce the delusion and make things much worse for their members...

People today with gang stalking delusion are able to find one another and reinforce and amplify each others' delusions, to their own detriment.

Now, even this isn't new – through the historical record, we find many examples of small groups of people who coalesced around a shared delusion. The difference is that old timey people had to luck into finding someone else who shared their delusion, while modern, internet-enabled people can just use the Reddit search-bar."

Given the large number[156] of online communities "organized around the conviction that its members are victims of a sprawling conspiracy to harass thousands of everyday Americans with mind-control weapons and armies of so-called gang stalkers"[157], it is my opinion that temporary protection isn't going to cut it, and that whatever is done at Gang stalking should be done at Electronic harassment as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

First I've heard of this. How is it different from Targeted Person Syndrome (and I might not be exact on this name but believe it is shortened to TP) Sgerbic (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh never mind, just read the gang stalker Wikipedia article. It is the same thing apparently. I thought there was a separate Wikipedia article for TP, I guess not. Sgerbic (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: Targeted individual both mentioned articles are there interestingly enough. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Pending changes is a pain IMHO. Every edit has to be examined and usually reverted. Article history becomes unintelligible. Electronic harassment was indefinitely semi-protected on 31 March 2024. I usually avoid indefinite but maybe the same at Gang stalking or just another 2-year semi. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Could go for a longer interval using a custom interval, e.g., 4 years. I dislike indef because indef protection becomes de facto permanent protection. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Only problem is, by the nature of the subject, people will always be coming in to <polite>add unreferenced dubious information</polite> no matter when we set the expiration date. It's not like Soleil Moon Frye, where we had to keep pushing out the protection in the hopes that the vandals would lose interest (which finally mostly happened). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• It might be merely 'broadly construed', but this strikes me as potentially falling under WP:CT/PS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think so - this isn't so much a science as internet-enabled, and it's not like it doesn't predate the internet anyway. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Is there any reason it can't just live under permanent semi-protection? I thought that was a tolerable outcome. If it is, just, to paraphrase film Gimli, have his head and be done with it. Less cycles here, more on articles. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 07:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Its very nature makes it a magnet for disruption. I have no qualms about indef semi-protection in that case so I've done it. Fences&Windows 18:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• The people who think they are being gang stalked / electronically harassed are unlikely to stop trying to disrupt Wikipedia no matter how long we wait. I am, no doubt, now listed as being in on the conspiracy...

On the other hand, the "indef protection becomes de facto permanent protection" argument has merit. "Anyone can edit" is a core value.

How about setting up a help page that automatically lists every page that has indef protection with wording that encourages editors to evaluate the pages and to ask that the protection be removed at RFPP if they think that it is likely that disruption is no longer likely? Maybe a noticeboard format where we can discuss whether to remove the protection? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Guy Macon, there's Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages, which links to a search. Setting the parameters to semi-protection, indef, articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ProtectedPages?namespace=0&type=edit&level=autoconfirmed&wpfilters%5B%5D=indefonly&size-mode=min&size= most recent here Fences&Windows 19:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going through and lifting some of the very old indef protections that aren't on very obvious vandalism magnets like Fuck or Idiot (e.g. McDonald's, Obama (disambiguation)). Rusalkii (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I lifted it for Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni as there seemed to be an issue with a banned user 18 years ago, not a general vandalism issue. Fences&Windows 21:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Lifting for Robert Frost might go OK. Fences&Windows 22:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Got one that might have been relevant 15 years ago, but now? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not brave enough to lift Margaret Thatcher unilaterally but I think it probably should go. Rusalkii (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Still too soon. Looked for recent news articles with her name: there's plenty. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is an interesting one. It appears to be an example of "protect and then ignore for 20 years". It also makes me think that maybe we should have a dedicated place to discuss these old protections rather than doing it here.

In 2007, Ronen Segev and Ronnie Segev were permanently protected by order of Jimbo. Which technically means that removing the protection violates WP:OFFICE.

Related:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Segev
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 27#Deletion/protection of Ronen Segev
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 38#Wikipedia now ReputationDefender Internet Alteration Services
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 159#Reputation.com and Ronen Segev
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive147#Ten O'Clock Classics
• Ten O'Clock Classics
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 10#WP:Requests for page protection/Archive/2026/01#Ronen Segev and Ronnie Segev
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 16#Ronen Segev
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 28
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive464#ReputationDefender & Administrator Sanctioned Censorship

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it a WMF action by default if "Jimbo" says it, or only if he says it an office action?

Even if I was financially employed by WMF and sometimes did WMF stuff on this account, anything I say is not an Office position.

We just settled with Larry Sanger no one is special. Jimbo himself if doing something block or ban worthy gets the airlock too. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Jimbo has no official special position now. This was not true at the time of the protection, though I haven't looked to see if it was meaningfully made in that capacity as opposed his personal admin one. That being said, if the issue is just that the action was made by Jimbo and we're concerned about that, we could just ping him and ask exactly the same way we ping any admin before undoing an action of theirs we aren't sure we have full context on. Rusalkii (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that move protections should also not be left in place for no reason, as they render page movers unable to go about their business as usual. It is relatively infrequent, but when it does happen it forces you to put it at the admin section of WP:RM/TR, so you don't know when the move will happen, but you're still on the hook for doing any potential clean-up when it does happen. This also wouldn't be an issue if basic move protection did not apply to the user group created specifically for moving pages. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level is something people seem to not know exists. Most people know you can ask for an increase to the level, but it seems the decrease hasn't been as widely advertised. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I put together a bot to collect some likely candidates for unprotection (old indef protection, protection log isn't too long, not very high page views): User:Rusalkii/Candidates for unprotection. With some relatively conservative filtering I've got 2537 pages, which isn't out of the scope of individual human review. Unfortuantely I do not think it would be reasonable to attempt a mass-unprotection here without page by page review, because a short protection log sometimes indicates pages that no one was stupid enough to ever unprotect. (See e.g. Shit, Douche, School, Hoe, Me.) Rusalkii (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Guest 290758

• Guest 290758 (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-41008-94 (talk · contribs)

I'm in a content dispute with Guest 290758 at Domenico Berardi - that's not the issue, which is being discussed more widely at WT:FOOTBALL. The issue is that Guest 290758 appears to have just edited from a TA to (try) avoid breaching 3RR. Can I get some more eyes/help here please? GiantSnowman 19:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, maybe Guest 290758's editing is the issue - they are mass reverting other editors at other articles, see e.g. this and this, in order to restore post nominals to infoboxes. GiantSnowman 19:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Just addressing the edit warring issue, @Guest 290758 just reverted the TA's edit which represents an attempt to back off from the edit warring. Both you and Guest... are near the 3RR bright line, and I don't see your reverts as exempt from that, so I'd back off as well. No comments on the rest of the issue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah you will notice I posted here rather than breach 3RR, please give me some credit... GiantSnowman 08:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

This user is making WP:MEATBOT-like edits such as adding post-nomials or ribbon icons. In my view, these are disruptive and go against guidelines like MOS:POSTNOM or MOS:ICONS. The user is constantly triggering edit filters and making/reverting edits without providing an edit summary.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Fully agree, I have yet to see one useful edit (other than them self-reverting at the Berardi article!). GiantSnowman 08:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I guess you're WP:INVOLVED now, but I think it would be appropriate for an admin or rollbacker to massrollback their edits. I reverted like 8 or 9 of their edits, but quite frankly, I have other things to do and I'd rather spend it doing something other than reverting all these meatbot-like edits.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd 100% support a mass rollback. But I'm not doing it, for numerous reasons. GiantSnowman 16:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Can we get further eyes on this please? We have an editor mass making edits which violate MOS, edit warring to maintain them, and editing logged out to breach 3RR... GiantSnowman 09:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

We have to get him contributing to this discussion here. Blanking the talk page shows that the editor has seen the messages but chooses not to comment. But Wikipedia:Communication is required... Kante4 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Edits like this, which mimic this, are evidence of further editing while logged out. See also things like this and this, which again suggest links to the TA accounts.

Editor is clearly WP:CIR / WP:NOTHERE and needs to be blocked and mass reverted IMHO. GiantSnowman 19:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Troll is harassing my user account

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

---

Trolls are coming to my talk page (User talk:Encyclopedia45) to leave me strange messages and harass me.

Without a doubt, it is the same troll who stalks the Candy Candy page.

User contributions for ~2026-41244-74

User contributions for ~2026-41024-34

User contributions for ~2026-41105-26

I request protection for my user page and that these harassers be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia45 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Deceased user

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

---

Hello. Requesting protection for deceased User:Gobonobo. Pingnova and Myotus are attempting to obtain a verifiable source, and they have been informed this user died in April. We would like to preserve the page as it is without future automated modifications. Maybe you can give us a hand. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

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

(post-close comment) There's a formal process described at WP:Deceased Wikipedians. Narky Blert (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2-

Disruptive edits and behaviour abuse

AaGa2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), doing disruptive edits on Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2- adding cast list according to his/her whims and fancies- even after multiple warnings and giving justifications like “plot reasons”, failing WP:TVCAST. Also adding unreliable sources again and again failing WP:ICTFSOURCES Imsaneikigai (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit War & Editing Old Casting

@Imsaneikigai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), doing edit war on Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2- adding cast list according to his/her will & accirdance, he is reverting the old edits back again & again which are 2-3 month's old & unreliable with current casting. Even after multiple warnings and giving justifications like “plot reasons”, failing WP:TVCAST AaGa2026 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Lol. Blindly copying my incident report, please clearly show me where I am failing wikipedia policies, infact you are clearly failing WP:TVCAST which clearly states “original flow of broadcast” should be followed while listing cast and all shows follow the same.

Secondly you are adding unreliable sources like IWMBUZZ to the article which fails WP:ICTFSOURCES, and when users are correcting the same you are edit warring. Now you are complaining just because the edits are not according to your convenience. Imsaneikigai (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the IWMBUZZ source was incorrectly done by mistake. But all other editing & reference of the source in the CASTING was clearly done by me with the new change's in the storyline of the show.

About the CAST FLOW about the sequence of the Actor's it is you who are changing & reverting it back with the old updates again & again which clearly doesn't follow the new sources & change's to the show. You should firstly check through the season 1 of the same show. & NOTHING is according to my convenience. REVERTING old updates & making it accordingly doesn't mean failing of WP:TVCAST . Casting Flow also follows the current new leads or the original leads preceding with it's 1st season. You should have that knowledge too. AaGa2026 (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced content

Nedlowe2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User continues to add unsourced content despite warnings. Provides no edit summaries and does not engage with their talk page. Reverted multiple times at Danny Roach and Kiss (band). Continues to persist with the same edits despite reverts and explanation, and keeps removing tags - see here here and [158]. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Was just reverted by another user here, and then re-added the same content again here. 3RR violation. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Belligerent reply here [159]. Borgenland (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for 31H Star Mississippi 14:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: user has returned to doing the exact same editing behaviour. Longer block needed now please. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Persistent addition of irrelevant content by an unregistered editor

• ~2026-40859-33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-40956-30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-41386-72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-41382-71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An unregistered editor who is assigned the abovementioned temporary accounts persistently adds irrelevant content to Hogots monastery. They cite a report of New York Times but the said report does not mention anything about the monastery (the unregistered editor acknowledged this). The report states that people were killed in a wooden building in Bitlis, not in the monastery (the monastery itself is not a wooden building and is in Gürpınar). The report also states that a number of people were thrown into Lake Van. The monastery is in a mountainous region and 33 km away from the lake. There isn't any claim in the report that those victims were related to the monastery. I tried to remove the irrelevant content but the unregistered editor kept reverting my edits. I do not want to start an edit war. I request an action from an administrator.--BSRF (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Administrators do not intervene in content disputes. You've both been edit warring. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

331dot then please intervene and restore the latest revision before the edit war.--BSRF (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Please be patient and use article talk to slowly discuss the issue. The TA has provided sources and coherent text. That needs to be discussed per WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Johnuniq per WP:BRD the TA is the one who should start a discussion. Anyway, I'll start the discussion since the admins won't implement any policy regarding an edit war.--BSRF (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

BRD doesn't say anything about who should initiate discussion. You may be thinking of WP:ONUS which sort of implies it, but onus doesn't justify edit warring so if an edit war develops then someone needs to initiate discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this not a WP:GS/AA issue with the TA adding content about the Armenian genocide? KylieTastic (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes I would say it is meaning the TA needs to cease editing the article directly about this. Since it's GS and not CTOP they may continue to make constructive comments (and edit requests) on the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I've ECP the article so all involved can use the Talk. @BSRF this does not give you license to continue edit warring or you will also lose access to the article. Star Mississippi 14:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, Nil Einne, Johnuniq, and 331dot: I just got noticed by this IP on my talk page. BSRF is doing nothing but disruptive edits and constant edit warring in the last months. He is mostly active on the Turkish wikipedia and is now simply mass-removing references to the Armenian genocide or the Pontic Greek genocide from articles like the here or in the articles of Hogots monastery or Surp Nshan monastery.--Gefälligst (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Gefälligst has been adding unsourced material in line with their POV. They even add contradicting material to the existing sources in articles. For exapmle; the existing source from greekreporter.com states that Virgin Mary Monastery was in use until 1940s. However Gefälligst keeps changing this information and they claim that it was in use until 1922 without providing a source. I'm just reverting unsourced and unverifiable content.--BSRF (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Group of TAs seemingly copying and pasting large amounts of material into articles

I'm a bit overwhelmed trying to figure out how to present what I've come across. I've tried to make it as clear as I can.

I've recently been doing some editing at Premiership of Andy Burnham, about the new UK Prime Minister. I noticed a TA (~2026-40978-77) adding very large amounts of material to the article at once. If you take a look at this example of their edits, you'll see a few problems: there's a lot of unencyclopedic/promotional tone/writing; some of the material (e.g. "Burnham also initiated contact with John Swinney"...) is just straight-up not in the citation; there are some access dates from a few days prior to the edit; and the edit was auto-tagged with "Edit Check (paste) shown". [At the time, I only really noticed the poor quality of the writing, and am going back and noticing more problems in light of new information.]

The next day, another TA (~2026-41114-48) started making similar-looking edits. If you take a look at this edit here, you won't see the same kind of blatant issues but this and some of the other edits just felt off to me. I ended up reverting this TA's edits and asked on their talk page if they were using an LLM (which I'm not currently alleging; I believe the issue here is unrelated to LLMs). There was no response

Earlier today, another TA (~2026-41200-43) appeared and put all their edits back. I asked them on their talk page if they're the same user, to which they said yes.

Yes, and the answer to your initial question is no. The cabinet section does not have LLM/pasting, the information is from the Burnham ministry article which was written entirely by another editor.

By this point, I had already done a little digging through these previous two TA's histories (not very thorough at all) and I started seeing some more problems, which I presented in my response:

Hey, thanks for responding. It's clear to me that you're editing in good faith and I can see why, for someone new to Wikipedia, it seems like it would make sense to put material from articles into closely-related articles in the way that you're doing, but this can only be done under certain circumstances.

You say you're not copying/pasting but you're also saying that you're taking material from other Wikipedia articles, and it's similar enough to set off paste check, as can be see in the tags on this edit. I recommend reading WP:CWW - while Wikipedia obviously isn't supposed to publish original thought, the words that editors come up with are still technically copyrighted, and copied material needs to be properly attributed via edit summaries. What you're doing is also causing other problems. Quite a lot of your edits insert large chunks of text without any in-line citations. And even for the stuff that does have in-line citations, because you're taking them from other articles, it's resulting in technical errors; in this edit here, you insert a named reference called "Williams decade", which was presumably defined elsewhere in the article you used, but because that's not an already-established reference name in the article you're editing, it just creates a broken citation

I hoped I would get a constructive response but the TA started making more large edits within the hour after this message without responding. I looked a bit further back through the edit histories of some of these articles they've been editing and realised that this is a way bigger problem than I thought. Just take a glance at the edit histories of some of these accounts:

• ~2026-35551-28
• ~2026-40676-02
• ~2026-40264-52

I don't really know what to do here ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

~2026-41484-35 also seems to be the same person ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:RPP is a place to ask for pages to be protected so (e.g.) temporary accounts might be temporarily restricted from editing there. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but - if you'll forgive my selfishness - I'm not always keen to prevent TAs in general from being able to directly edit articles. The problem here seems to be one particular person ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sent there. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Here's my response to the request, if anyone wants to take a look ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I left a warning about AI use on ~2026-41484-35's talk page given their history on other temporary accounts. I will partially block them from the mainspace if they make another AI-generated edit without responding, or I recommend another responding admin do so if I am asleep and they feel it is appropriate. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This one may need administrator attention considering this, people have approached them on their talk page about this and other edits. LateFatherKarma (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that one was an easy WP:NOTHERE block. Morwen (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring and refusal to engage with sources by User:Wmbata

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

---

Recently unblocked user, Wmbata, has repeatedly reverted sourced edits that describe the Etche people as an ethnic group, despite multiple reliable sources supporting that description.

Rather than addressing the sources or seeking consensus on the article's talk page, they continue restoring their preferred version asserting the Etche are Igbo, with no notable sources. This user refuses to engage with the sourced materials listing Etche as a ethnicity, and an ethnic minority in Rivers state.

This has resulted in repeated back-and-forth reverts and appears to be edit warring. I am seeking administrator assistance to stop the disruption and encourage discussion based on reliable sources rather than repeated reversions.

Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etche&action=history Dolpina (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User talk page vandalism by a TA

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

---

This TA (~2026-41267-86 (talk · contribs)) was on my talk page falsely accusing me of cheating and asking me for 50% of what I have. This user also called me slurs in Spanish. This breaks WP:TALK guidelines. Please do something and I will highly appreciate it. IShowSammy (discussion / contributions) 20:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

And they have made no useful contributions. Indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 21:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC). On second thoughts, I've also revision deleted. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC).

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

Salebot1 sock filling own user talk with garbage

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

---

User talk:Биггулонский ученый needs to be deleted and TPA revoked. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content by ~2026-39062-52

~2026-39062-52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings - also see warnings on related TAs. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked before with other temporary accounts. Blocked again now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring, accusations of vandalism, chronic misconduct in a page’s Talk page by user:@7712Touch74396.

Talk page: Talk:Rouran Khaganate (diffs included below) Problems: instant but undiscussed reverts or tweaking of the page’s lede. Accusations of a user being a bot, accusations of the other user changing sources. Interrupting a conflict negotiation with another user. Reverting a change 3 times. Diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:7712Touch74396&action=edit&redlink=1
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rouran_Khaganate&oldid=1365923578
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rouran_Khaganate&oldid=1365922311
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rouran_Khaganate&oldid=1365939858

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burlengen (talk • contribs) 09:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

actually revert 2 times (not 3) in 25 July. And reason is this user clearly change sourced parts like this. Source clearly says xiongnu "As the ancient sources regard the Juan-juan as a separate branch of the Hsiung-nu". I can give another example if you want. You can also ask from @IVORK, @Jackjd0 7712Touch74396 (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah. disruptive editing and no effort to reach consensus. also- for the record, im not sure what being involved in an ani requires but i have a super busy weekend so replies may be slow if yall do need me. Jackjd0 (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

i think this account blenog to him (base on his own words like this, this and this . He used to do edits like this. He used to make those edits before I even talked to him. He also wrote this (again, before I talked to him) "the issue i have is im facing vandalism accusations when my conduct is hands off and i usually let vandals do their things so they get blocked." 7712Touch74396 (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I am not convinced (at this time) that any editor is editing Rouran Khaganate in bad faith. This means reverts to the article are part of a content dispute and subject to the restrictions in WP:3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Change what actually wrote in source to other things

  Like: Source clearly says xiongnu "As the ancient sources regard the Juan-juan as a separate branch of the Hsiung-nu" but change xiongnu to Donghu this. I'm not allow to revert it? 7712Touch74396 (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  @7712Touch74396 You have access to the cited book? —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  @C.Fred Yes look. 7712Touch74396 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  @7712Touch74396 And where are Hsiung-nu and Xiongnu equated as two different spells of (or names for) the same people? Whereas I can see from Donghu people that they are distinct from the Xiongnu. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  yes Wade–Giles of Standard Mandarin. Open xiongnu article go to Transcriptions section, you can see it. Look at this or this

  Yes they are different but user clearly change it, sources clearly says xiongnu. Thanks for your efforts 7712Touch74396 (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

User: FELINNI FUND

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

---

• FELINNI FUND (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-41337-46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some sort of promotional account, appears to be a violation of WP:USERNAME, doesn't appear to understand any replies (non-English speaker?) Created Category:Jon Estrada MissAshleey Duhh. Two incoherent posts at the help desk. One weird thing: that category creation has some obvious AI content (looks like the AI used by Google search) but the AI content references the Wikipedia page before it was created. Has Google invented a time machine? Also doesn't appear to understand the difference between a trademark copyright mark, and registered trademark... --Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

User indeffed, cat deleted, mystery solved (cat created and deleted multiple times). All done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Redirect caught in edit filter

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

---

Wanted to create a redirect from Ghazwa-e-Hind (conspiracy theory) to Islamophobic trope#Demographic tropes in India. And Ghazwa-e-Hind (prophecy)/Ghazwa-e-Hind (hadith) to Indian reunification#Religious groups (distinct concepts: wikt:Ghazwa-e-Hind). "Hind" is caught in an edit filter.

Reposting from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Redirect creation (as the more apt board). Gotitbro (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Avengers350 – lack of communication & unsourced additions

Avengers350 (talk · contribs) has made a long list of both unsourced and inappropriately sourced additions to 2026 United States Virgin Islands gubernatorial election. By "inappropriately sourced", I mean that they are continually adding political endorsements with either no source or a non-independent source, in violation of WP:ENDORSE. They have also made many unsourced or poorly sourced candidate additions and attempted to add a large unsourced section multiple times without explanation. They have done the same at 2026 United States House of Representatives election in the United States Virgin Islands. Post-1992 United States politics is a contentious topic.

There are simply too many examples to list in "diff form", but the page's revision history will shed some light. On their talk page, I have informed them about the existence of WP:ENDORSE four separate times. I have also reminded them about their unsourced additions multiple times. Despite the fact that communication is required, they have continued editing without acknowledging any of this or changing their behaviour.

It's pretty apparent that they have seen what I am saying/doing, because they chose to request speedy deletion of the page (which was quickly declined by @CoconutOctopus) rather than simply reply to me or start using adequate sources. Given the complete lack of engagement, I have decided to bring this discussion to ANI so that perhaps they will decide to respond. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring on math articles across multiple temporary accounts

This person is currently inactive, but based on their history, they might start again.

They've been adding original research on math articles then edit warring to try to keep it there.

Many people have been reverting their edits, some of their accounts have been blocked, and some of the articles that they've been editing have been protected.

The tricky thing is that they're using a spread of IP addresses, not in any particular range, though they're all in the same geographical area. If any admin has time to check for a correlation, that would be great. I might try to do an analysis myself if I can figure out how to do it.

My previous thread on ANEW: Multiple temporary accounts ... (Result: Semiprotections)

Accounts: (latest to earliest)

• ~2026-41246-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-41326-82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-41064-16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-41280-11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-41067-32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-41094-07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-40865-63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-41031-97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-40919-75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-40906-71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BTW, a post on WikiProject math talk: § Rouge [sic] on a rampage

Thanks — W.andrea (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like their IP addresses are all on the same network. — W.andrea (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Tried to tell them read MOS:LEAD. And they kept edit warring with me and I stopped after three reverts because I had enough and they weren't listening to what I was trying to tell them. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 15:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Taking responsibility if I did anything wrong, but I am not the one at fault. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 16:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

For reference, that was with -58 at Gravitational singularity, yeah? Don't worry, your actions are not in question here. This user has been edit warring with a bunch of people on a bunch of articles. Thanks for dealing with this disruptive editing :) — W.andrea (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Welcome! Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 19:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked one more IP that was active today, found through WP:TAIV but don't see any obvious rangeblocks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Another account was active last night and blocked:

• ~2026-41605-62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same geographical area, same network. It also has the same /16 range as one of the previous ones, but that seems to be shared by other people, so no chance we'll block the whole range.

— W.andrea (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Pulseoraus AI use and lying about it

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

---

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

This editor has categorically denied in multiple places that they have used AI to create their drafts. However, their denial first of all carries the usual evasive hallmarks, one of their counterarguments being that the draft cannot be AI generated because editors with 7+ years of experience also worked on it; but this is not true. In the case of Draft:Nëse Vdes (Mirud Song) for example, they are the only significant contributor, with other editors only cleaning up refs and categories.

As for other evidence; edit summaries like this one and this one are completely riddled with every common sign of AI generated edit summaries, and @Gurkubondinn also provided some analysis of their editing behaviour in an edit summary here which shows inconsistencies/edit speeds very typical of AI usage.

There is no miscommunication or misunderstanding here, this editor is obviously using AI tools and blatantly lying about it, and should be indeffed immediately unless they own up to it and agree to stop using all AI tools. Athanelar (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I disagree with the characterization of my editing and the conclusion that I have lied. My drafts have been edited and improved over time by multiple experienced contributors as well, and many revisions involve sourcing, copyediting, formatting, and restructuring. That does not demonstrate that the original drafts were AI-generated but you can rest assure you will not see any signs of AI on any contribution I make. The policy is very clear to me. So, to clarify - I am not using AI to write Wikipedia articles, the policy has been made clear to me from the start of my editor account, and I will not use AI to do so. Thank you! Pulseoraus (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain how it is, then, that when you created this draft all of your references contain the parameter "utm_source=chatgpt.com" which indicates the links were retrieved by ChatGPT? Athanelar (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a different draft from the one you declined as AI generated. On Adrian Hadribeaj, I already had explained that I did use a tool to look for sources to make sure I did not miss something important but that was only when I was still learning properly. You're talking about multiple drafts I have pending and you're grouping them together because I made a mistake by using it on one of the pages in Adrian Hadribeaj but not for the writing just for the sources to make sure I did not miss an important source. As soon as that was brought up to me days ago I corrected myself. I apologized to the administrator who brought it up to my attention and I notified them and promised them I would not use AI ever again because I understood the policy and spent hours on reading on policies other administrators brought up to me. However the song draft has been done with AI. I had already been called out once before for the Adrian Hadribeaj article days prior. I took accountability and I corrected myself, bettered my editing and stopped using AI even for sources I think I might've missed. That apology is still on the talk page written days prior for the Adrian Hadribeaj. I can confirm, that the song article I wrote, I was not using ai or any ai tools while drafting it. I spent many hours, days in a row correcting it, improving it and i intend to continue improving them. I moved sources around because of a feedback I received from multiple other editors that are visible on talk pages. You have my promise no AI use or AI tools will be used. Thank you for bringing this to my attention once again. Pulseoraus (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are not using LLMs can you explain why you are saying stuff which is blatantly untrue? While some other editors have done some minor work on your drafts, they definitely have not been "rewritten many times" as you claimed Multiple independent writers and seasoned editors on wikipedia have contributed to it and its been rewritten many times. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I apologize for that. My intention was not to make it seem like other editors wrote on the article itself. I was referring to the general contribution weather that was clean up, maintenance. But I did request feedback everyday for each draft and I implemented chose based on my understanding at the time. I appreciate your feedback as it helps me learn more. ~2026-41460-64 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I had to leave for work and I was trying to log in the response above is mine. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Also it's a little silly to use other editors working on your drafts as a defence when AFAICT, pretty much all editors who've worked on your drafts think they been made with LLMs & are unsuitable for Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

My goodness! I’m sorry it came across that way. That’s not what I said nor intended to say. I’m a person that always responds to every feedback. Including on my user page I’ve stated how important it is for me to have editors teach, guide me and learn from them. I’m humbled everytime I get feedback.

In reference to what I said just to clarify I did not intend to say other editors wrote LLM I was referring to the contributions they provided after the first draft. I was not accusing them or anybody. I’m grateful for each and everyone of you who are trying to guide me the right way based on policies and how to be a stellar editor! Pulseoraus (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

That is why I’m also responding to each and everyone of the amins who have questions for me because I value transparency. I value honesty. I value learning from all of you and I simply wanted to provide the contributions in my community. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my point. This has nothing to do with you accusing others. You've said the work by others means that your drafts are okay. But the other editors in fact think the drafts are generated by LLMs & remains unsuitable for Wikipedia. Therefore their work doesn't mean your drafts are okay, your drafts remain unacceptable LLM generated content. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

That is not what I was implying. I explained above what I said and what I’ve mean on your first question about the other editors. Your interpretation of what I said despite all the explaining I’m doing - it doesn’t alter the reality. Thats your continued interpretation of them. That’s not what I said. If the drafts were an issue to start with on article Nese vdes song - why would many other editors who cleaned up the drafts not flag them as LLM? And I specially was referring to the Nese vdes song article because the Adrian Hadribeaj draft had been flagged from the first draft and I’m aware of that. I understand enforcing policies is very important - however twisting what I’m explaining is not fair. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

We can see that only three editors other than you have edited Draft:Nëse Vdes (Mirud Song) - one of them was a mechanical edit to fix categories you accidentally included on a draft; another was a semi-automated edit to fix up some references, and the third is the very user who declined the draft and submitted this ANI request. Editors doing such mechanical or semi-automated tasks would be unlikely to look for LLMSIGNS. Morwen (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct. I tried to clean up anything needed with the editor prior to it being brought as an ANI request. But I wasn’t saying other editors edited the text themselves. I’ve edited the text of the article many times because I kept leaving messages on talk pages so editors can give me advice on how to better it and I kept making changes based on that advice all the time. Those are documented across. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this user has also been contributing content about the artist Mirud to multiple other language wikipedias, including what appear to be whole articles in Albanian, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Latvian, Macedonian and Spanish. The user also created, as their sixth edit to Wikipedia, a userpage saying "Outside of my professional work, contributing to Wikipedia is one of my favorite hobbies."

Additionally, they have two images uploaded to commons. One is a MIRUD album cover File:Nëse_vdes_by_MIRUD.jpg which they claim is "own work", and the other is File:Adrian Hadribeaj portrait 2023.jpg, which is a potrait they also claim is "own work", and is of the subject of a declined draft Draft:Adrian Hadribeaj. This may indicate a conflict of interest with respect to these topics. Pulseoraus - would you like to address any of this? Morwen (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have covered multiple Eurovision related artists not just the artist you've mentioned. My profile states that I'm a huge fan of festivali i kenges and i watch Eurovision closely. It's one of my main interests. I'm fluent in multiple languages. I was unaware that's a violation. I have addressed it before that I have no conflict of interest with either topics. I have created other pages besides these 2 topics including in Albanian. My apologizes. Pulseoraus (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Please explain how you came to take a professional studio photo of Adrian Hadribeaj but do not have a conflict of interest. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I was asked this during the first draft as well. I was a new editor and not fully experienced yet at the time when I added the Adrian Hadribeaj image. I’m mentioning that I’ve addressed it before on other talk pages when I was asked by admins - so you can check and make sure that answer has always been cohesive. I had found the picture on the press releases he has and when I had uploaded it I classified it wrong due to the lack of experience on wikimedia commons. Then when I was asked I understood the policy fully and I removed the picture. Thank you again. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this situation the same for File:Nëse vdes by MIRUD.jpg? If it is not your own work and you have no evidence it is freely licensed, then it will need to be deleted from commons. I have submitted the first image for speedy deletion on commons. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 19:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Jacob,

That is correct. I found them on the press sources I had used and I had uploaded both Adrian Hadribeaj and Nese vdes the same day I just simply added it in a way I shouldn’t have due to the lack of experience and once other admins had asked me about both of them, I immediately corrected the article itself, issued an apology to the admins for the mistake I had made. This is just being escalate it here but I want to make sure that you’re aware I’ve addressed the situation before and that it was a genuine mistake. I’m so grateful for all of you and the feedback on teaching me how to be a better editor while following wiki guidelines. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain how a "lack of experience" would cause you to call something your "own work" when you had no involvement in creating it? Assuming no LLM use, English seems to be one of the many languages you are fluent in. And you don't need to know anything about policy to know that something you did not create is not your own work. When you use the upload wizard as you seem to have done, you have to tick the box which says "This work was created by me and anyone is free to use it." and then you must have also ticked the one which says "This work is entirely created by me". Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It was a genuine mistake that I addressed right away. When I clicked on “own work” my understanding of the time was that it referred to the article itself that I was trying to do. It was a genuine mistake. I apologize. That is why they were removed right away from the drafts itself. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

So you're saying you read the text which says "All media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are free for anyone to use and share anywhere on internet or off internet. To ensure the work you upload is copyright-free, please provide the following information." and thought it referred to the article? And you also though that "This work is entirely created by me" (emphasis added) referred to the article but not the image you were uploading? Also you haven't properly addressed it as you haven't marked the files for deletion on commons. Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi again, thank you so much on all the guidance you’ve provided. I feel so devestated by all this mess when all I was trying to do is contribute and I was quite enjoying the community. Yes, because many sources had those pictures I had thought that they are permitted for use by anyone which was a mistake of mine. When admins brought it up I remove them from the drafts right away. And I left a note on talk pages with confirmations of those. In regards to the Wikipedia I didn’t even know I can delete the file myself from wikimedia commons. I thought that’s something I cannot do and it’s not on my capacity. Again, lack of knowledge but I’m learning as I go. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It's also still live on the Albanian Wikipedia, although I suppose the commons deletion will take care of that. Can we clarify, are you claiming to be fluent in all the following languages: Albanian, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Latvian, Macedonian and Spanish? Morwen (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have studied literature and I’m familiar with many cultures due to my visits long periods of relocation in multiple locations you’ve mentioned while studying and many Fulbright Programs I’ve done across Europe. I grew up in the states so of course I speak English. My family is Albanian I speak that, Macedonian from mother’s tongue, Spanish I’ve learned myself decades ago since ancient history was a huge passion of mine. I speak those I’ve mentioned fluently and have a very good understanding of the other languages as well. Pulseoraus (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's a very incredible achievement. Any others, or is that it? Morwen (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to 4 languages I speak; English, Albanian, Macedonian and Spanish fluently. These are the languages I speak fluently. It is not an achievement. It’s knowledge.

The rest you referenced, I have basic to moderate knowledge of. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Are there any other languages you would feel capable of writing a Wikipedia article in? Morwen (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Besides the ones we have already discussed and clarified. I’d be happy to film a video while drafting one and submit it through email if you’d like further proof of my writing abilities in the topics I’m interested in and the languages I speak fluently and the ones I’m familiar with. Thank you. Please let me know if there’s any other questions I’d be happy to answer them. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I would like to bring the community's attention to the tags on nl:Mirud (zanger) and lv:Mirud which appear to have both been identified by local users as machine/AI translations and nominated for deletion. Morwen (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct. Theres talk pages on both of those and I’ve been given the opportunity to improve them! Thanks for notifying the community for something they can already see and something that’s already been discussed. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

If you continue to insist against all common sense and plain observation that you have not been using LLMs, even in the face of multiple accusations from multiple editors across multiple language versions of Wikipedia, the inevitable outcome here is going to be an indefinite block of your editing privileges. Athanelar (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have already confirmed why it was used in the Adrian Hadribeaj article. I have also stated that I appreciate the feedback provided on them and I stopped immediately using any assistance of AI to locate any sources at all. I already addressed why the issue initially started. I made a mistake by using it for sources for Adrian Hadribeaj’s article meaning to locate sources I’ve missed and then the same hour I was notified not to do so and I stopped using it even to locate any source I must’ve missed. I’m not denying anything whatsoever. I’m clarifying my position. I’ve not denied it. I responded on this same thread to explain why it was used initially on the draft for Adrian. Ever since I’ve been getting notices about the same article until it was routed to ANI today. I will not use any AI tools, not for writing and not even for sourcing moving forward. If the admins see it fit to block my editing privileges that’s fine. I understand the policy and I understand what has occurred. I understand what happened in the Adrian hadribeaj article and it won’t happen again! I’ve said it for days on a row now. Pulseoraus (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m gonna continue contributing to this great platform and have many things to work on such as learning how to draft better be better and policies. I have a lot of opportunity to grow. If you have any construction feedback or questions I’ll be happy to answer them. Thank you for the time. Pulseoraus (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Can I suggest as a first step you stop telling outrageous lies that nobody here buys? Morwen (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you for your feedback.

You’ve been on Wikipedia for 23 years? By now I would expect better conduct and writing rather than write insults.

Can I suggest you keep a professional tone? I’m not selling anything so nobody is looking at what you or some else is buying. I’m making contributions and learning as I go. I’m being asked questions and I’m responding. You seem to be wanting an argument, write accusations and offend editors since I am an editor myself. And I have no interest in participating in personal insults or aggression with anyone. Thank you and have a blessed day! Pulseoraus (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Note here the misunderstanding of a very basic English colloqualism which any native English speaker would understand. Morwen (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

My understanding of what you said is clear. You cannot tell me how l can interpret something you write towards me. Maybe in the UK, absolutely not in the US when you write messages of your sort on that aggressive tone, it’s disrespectful and unprofessional. I’m here to answer any questions in a respectful manner. Pulseoraus (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not seeing any issues with Morwen's conduct here, and I think that you should take their advice.

Can you explain how you created the article on the Danish Wikipedia, despite having confirmed that you don't speak Danish well enough to write a Wikipedia article? ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

When did I confirm this? How about you take Morwen’s advice and stop telling lies left and right Mr. Hacker? Since I’ve joined Wikipedia 4 days ago you’ve come to my talk pages for non sense. Is this a court? Is this the fbi? You can provide constructive feedback and enforce policies but being an editor on Wikipedia doesn’t give the permission to offend people and try to push your own beliefs on a matter. Somebody who doesn’t want to take accountability doesn’t respond. I’ve been responding to each and every single one of you for hours in a row. Please enough already. I’m a new editor trying to learn and contribute. This aggressive tone is absolutely unnecessary. Pulseoraus (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we are wasting our time here. Given the [baseless] allegations of "unprofessional" behaviour, does someone else want to do it? Morwen (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Your time is being waste? I’ve spent 4-5 hours responding to each and everyone of you. And you’re gonna teach me how to speak my own language? I’m sorry your little feelings are hurt. Go ahead and do what you want to do. I’ve already escalated the matter through email. Given your unprofessional tone. Removing me as a user doesn’t give you authority in the world, cause let me remind you started as an editor but I understand it serves your ego. I wrote no accusations. I responded to your wording and your disrespect. Thank you! Pulseoraus (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have discovered another image on commons that may be related - File:Mirud Signature.png, which was uploaded by commons:User:AlienMegastar at 04:13 today - this is their only contribution on the wikis that I could find. Five minutes later Pulseoraus linked it on wikidata. The signature is marked "own work". Morwen (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It definitely is not "own work", because the image file has C2PA metadata indicating that it was generated by OpenAI tools. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not upload the file to Wikimedia Commons nor do I control the Commons account that uploaded the signature in question. I simply found the file while I was working on multiple articles and linked it to Wikidata which is a normal edit I thought. If you have concerns about who uploaded the file, metadata, or its provenance, those questions should be addressed with the uploader and through the appropriate Commons processes not by assuming my involvement without actual evidence. I have already escalated this matter to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team and I'll wait for those reviews to be conducted. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

How did you find it in 5 minutes? Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I had already been browsing Wikimedia Commons while working on an article in another language - which is how I came across the file. I did not upload it or control the Commons account that uploaded it. I simply linked an existing Commons file while editing. I was editing many pages at that time. I have already escalated my issues through the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team where I provided the ANI discussion and the further evidence for review. At this point, I will wait for those reviews to conclude rather than continue debating assumptions here. Thank you. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Wow what an extreme coincidence Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to respond to every reply I make here, as that only makes it harder for everyone to focus on the actual issue. This is not a personal dispute; it's a discussion about the facts. You asked me a question, and I answered it. I've already escalated my concerns to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team, where I've provided the ANI discussion and supporting evidence for review. At this point, I'll allow those reviews to run their course rather than continue debating speculation here. Thank you. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations on your accomplishment. Please provide evidence rather than speculation. The points you continue to raise have already been discussed. I've formally escalated my concerns to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team, and I'll wait for those processes to run their course. You also continue to focus on a small number of articles while ignoring my contributions across many others. Drawing broad conclusions from a handful of examples, while disregarding the rest of my editing history, is not an objective assessment. Thank you.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

What many others? You have 217 edits to a tiny number of articles. This is one of the many reasons why you shouldn't get an LLM to respond for you especially when they don't know your history. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I will make sure no LLM usage is happening on anything I edit or draft. I apologize for any miscommunication and I strive to learn, get feedback and implement those feedbacks. Trust me, I have learned a lot on what is expected from a good editor. I have sent the matter to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team. Thankful for your feedback in resolving this issue. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked the users edits on svwiki, dewiki and nowiki (since I speak the languages), and they've been adding this (forged?) signature to articles on svwiki and dewiki as well. On nowiki, they created the no:Mirud (sanger) article, which was promptly deleted five minutes later as "foreign-language article, machine translation and/or cross-wiki spam/abuse" per their deletion guidelines. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Forged?? I added and edited elements according to Wikipedia once I noticed the file. It’s interesting how nobody addressed all the other edits I’ve done on the other pages. The whole focus is on Adrian Hadribeaj page which we are going in circles about. Stop writing accusations with no facts. We have already discussed this above, MANY TIMES.

You speak all of those languages? Oh - so it’s okay for you to speak more than one language? But when other editors like me speak multiple languages then it’s not real?? Oh okay. Pulseoraus (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You earlier denied that you would feel capable of writing a Wikipedia article in Norwegian. We can also see that there were additionally articles at Czech, Slovak, Lithuanian Wikipedias which were was deleted recently as "spam" - if we contacted our colleagues on those places would they tell us that you are the person who created those articles? Morwen (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don’t twist my words and do not write lies as facts. I never made such statement. I made sure to write it, right on this thread that I’ve made those articles and I’m still working on them according to their specific guidelines. Read properly and stop doing this unnecessary endless back and forth for the same question. Stop changing what was said. That’s not what you were told earlier. This back and forth and adding the same questions continuously. Pulseoraus (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

And the user also confirmed that they would not feel comfortable writing a Wikipedia article in Danish, but responded with utter bewilderment when asked to explain how they created the da:Mirud (sanger) article on dawiki. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Pulseoraus - I named Albanian, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Latvian, Macedonian and Spanish, and asked Are there any other languages you would feel capable of writing a Wikipedia article in? and you responded with an unconditional No. Besides the ones we have already discussed and clarified. to this. The Czech, Slovak and Lithuanian articles have not previously been mentioned on this thread. gurkubondinn - I think you're wrong on the Danish denial, as i did include that in the list of languages i was asking about. Morwen (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

For point, I was going off them saying No when you asked if there were any other languages they felt comfortable writing articles in. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

As in, I understood that to be denying any languages other than than ones that they had themselves mentioned in the comment prior to your question. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn@Morwen Pulseoraus is either trolling or using an LLM for all the talk page messages (likely both). Each response is just going to feed them more. May be best to just WP:DENY. EaglesFan37 (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

So everybody who reviewed Draft:Adrian Hadribeaj is wrong?

"There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed 'My God! There are DOZENS of them!!'"

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Please stop arguing nonsense and arguing the same topic which has been discussed from the start of this ANI thread. I already took accountability about the Adrian Hadribeaj first draft everywhere possible. If you had spent 3 minutes reading the thread you would've seen that. It was a one time where I made a mistake of using it and I swore to not use it again. I was new and still am new and learning as time goes. I have forwarded this for review for the committee and I will wait for their review. Thank you. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion here will remain open, and it is in your best interests to participate. ArbCom getting involved in a situation like this is exceedingly rare and you're more likely to win the lottery than to get T&S involved in something like this. While you're waiting on a process that isn't going to do anything but tell you to participate at ANI, people are going to be discussing your words and your actions, but without your input. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your unnecessary input and your extra point from this contribution, you have officially won a dishwasher. I have been responding to everything instead of trying to jump in acting like you know the issue head to toe, learn how to read a thread or get someone else to read it to you. If you don’t have anything constructive to say don’t write unnecessary things just to argue. Weather Arbcom can resolve this or safety or ANI or whoever it doesn’t matter; I exercise my freedom and liberty to report it wherever I see it fit. I’ve responded to everyone. So, for my interest, I’m fully participating in this and I’ve been participating from the moment it was brought to my attention. Thank you for repeating and writing nonsense that doesn’t solve anything. Pulseoraus (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Re: "I've formally escalated my concerns to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team" is there any evidence that this actually happened? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I submitted the reports today and have the confirmation emails. Those emails are not public and I don’t intend to post them on ANI unless requested by the reviewing team. Pulseoraus (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

This has now reached the point of a WP:CIR issue, because if you really did send this to ArbCom/T&S then you did not read the requirements and purposes of either committee before doing so. You are wasting everybody’s time. The best thing you can do for yourself is start telling the truth, and hopefully avoid an indefinite block. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 00:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this idea that being a jerk will help your cause. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

An indef might be necessary here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, we're being trolled. While some of the (mostly, more recent) comments by Pulseoraus are clearly written themselves, the vast majority of their comments here are blatantly LLM generated. We'll start with this one as one of the most egrerious examples, but this whole thread demonstrates that whatever is exactly going on here it's not compatible with a collaborative project. Indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Good block. I was on the fence about LLM use at first, but the more they wrote that clearly wasn't written by an LLM, the more obvious it was that they weren't actually capable on their own of churning out full rewrites in 10 minutes with impeccable grammar and control of tone. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  TPA's been revoked so I've LLMPRODed their one article. Idk if anyone fancies reverting all their edits (I don't!) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Rsk6400 and the behavior following the edit in Transfer of Crimea to Ukraine

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

---

Rsk6400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user first went to Transfer of Crimea to Ukraine article and in its Aftermath section, removed the subsection about the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, with the reason that it happened decades later and there's no need to go into the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War. There was an undo of this deletion, reason being that the rest of the Aftermath also occurred decades later in post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and that a unilateral abrogation of the transfer is as important of an aftermath as any, and that the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War is indeed a valid part of the aftermath. A discussion was opened in the talk page to clarify this disagreement.

Then this editor reinstated the reversion citing the sanction in Russia-Ukraine articles, without adressing the reasoning for the content dispute. Meanwhile, the article talk page was ignored.

So is this user going to use the sanction as an excuse to simply edit by fiat, rather than edit based on the merits of that edit? This implies, put another way, that the other party can simply make a confirmed account and suddenly this user would have NO reason to argue back.

Now, the issues to report at ANI:

• WP:BRD. The content was placed there a long ago, long before the 2022 full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine occurred. It was added basically right after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, so the status quo is keeping this content. If the removal of the content is challenged by others, you're supposed to discuss it in the talk page. (It's not like it was unsourced.) And the other party even initiated that discussion for the editor, who was invited to it.

Yet this editor continues to refuse to discuss. I get that there are sanctions on certain articles for a good reason, but a valid discussion is still open in the talk page, and you should be discussing the rationale for the content edit. It's still no excuse to engage in edit war or to completely ignore an ongoing talk page discussion while continuing to edit unilaterally.

• WP:ICANTHEARYOU. The user was also told in the user talk page about the discussion in this article talk page, and the reason for disagreeing with the edit was re-explained there. But the user repeatedly reverted comments in the user talk page without addressing anything.

• WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS in the edit summary. The edit reason given to these removals of the user talk page comments were "troll". Putin troll. How is presenting a genuine edit disagreement with a genuine reasoning explained "trolling"? And how is simply pointing out the need for mentioning Russia's breach of its agreement with Ukraine as a part of the Aftermath section a "Putinist trolling"? I do not support Putin's autocratic regime in Russia or his invasion of Ukraine, and I find this offensive.

Looking at the user's past edit history in that user's talk page, it seems to be a common pattern for the user to end an ongoing conversation (or just revert right at the start without answering at all) while insulting the commenters like this. Even if there is a legitimate reason to end a conversation and clear our past comments, you still didn't need to present the reversion in such belittling ways when the other user has genuine concerns brought up about this editor or the editor's content edits. This disregards WP:GOODFAITH. This is why I find this to be a pervasive issue and not a one-off problem stemming from this content dispute.

• WP:OWN regarding the user's talk page. A user talk page is for discussions about you and things that involve you, not a page belonging to you. The user page is the one that's closer to the editor's personal blog or decorative profile page (though of course it's still not absolute). I sometimes see editors that confuse the difference between "user page" and "user talk page", and proceed to act overly controlling over their own talk pages (by, as mentioned above, refusing to converse properly and erasing valid notices) or outright telling others to essentially "get off my lawn".

At a minimum, this user needs to be told to cut this out and be advised to work with other editors in a more cooperative manner without shooting down any disagreements and labelling them "trolls". ~2026-41555-45 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Got any diffs? Morwen (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: As it's only in the title, the relevant user is Rsk6400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 19:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if there are problems with Rsk6400's editing but you cannot be the one to raise the issue per WP:GS/RUSUKR. Nor can you continue to edit articles about it. You can only make constructive comments on the relevant article talk pages and edit requests. Also did you use an LLM to write the above? Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

And to be clear, yes any extended confirmed editor can revert editing disallowed by ECR under GS or CTOP by an editor who is not extended confirmed. There is zero need to give any other reason. If any editor who is extended-confirmed wants to take responsibility for the edit, they are free to reinstate it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the TA should not have restored their changes, let alone be edit warring (Rsk6400 did mention the restriction). Although I don't see any evidence that the TA is a "Putin troll".[160] Mellk (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

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

More TAs related to the Masked Singer vandal case

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Masked Singer vandal
• ~2026-35277-98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-41459-08 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-26038-08 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-41562-57 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-41357-35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-30407-17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-39722-22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-37965-53 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-37958-26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-37556-37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-36986-18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-35004-48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-33708-35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-33606-66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-30649-29 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

A bunch of related TAs have been genre-warring and adding unsupported influences to music articles. This is the characteristic style of the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Masked Singer vandal.

They like to add unreferenced names of other artists as influences.[161] They also engage in genre-warring.[162] Sometimes they do both at once.[163]

It looks like this person jumps around to various public internet services, making it impossible to rangeblock them without collateral restrictions on the innocent. And yet, I hope that some of the underlying IP ranges can be blocked as a preventive, as has been done in the past. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Done Dealt with two ranges that cover all but two of those TAs, the other two are difficult to deal with as they are busy ranges. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Highly disruptive temporary account evading block and needing block

~2026-41444-04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Should be self-explanatory via their edit history. Currently evading multiple blocks (as seen in the list I gave at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyMega#25 July 2026), and is persistently disruptively edit warring across multiple articles. Already reported at SPI and AIV, but the temporary account is just continuing on as the remain unblocked. As noted in my SPI and AIV reports, an IP block(s?) may be required, given how extensive this is. Also, are temporary accounts ever globally locked? If so, may be necessary here, as they are being disruptive/evading blocks across multiple Wikis, as seen here: [164], [165], [166], [167], and most notably (from what I've found thus far) [168]. Magitroopa (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Indefed the main one. Might be that someone who is more familiar with this case should do any follow up. Morwen (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Admin intervention request, neutrality, and reliable sources on WP:ANIME

Per Fairyrosequartz's request, she is asking for an admin following myself and other editors at WP:ANIME reverting and discussing her edits, paricularly around boys' love and yuri media. While I do agree that there is a general coverage bias against media and culture aimed at women (particularly Japanese media that don't get Western coverage), there has been a constant pattern where she would add unsourced information, and when it gets reverted, she would go on (sometimes unrelated) tangents about her experiences in working in the Japanese BL industry. She states that information directly from her and her social media accounts should be accepted, as she works as a manga artist and is friends with hundreds of manga artists in the industry.

Please see discussions on User talk:Fairyrosequartz and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#"Series Composition", "Developer", "Screenplay"; and Infobox Television for context. She has no problems communicating in English, but she specifically wants to speak to someone who knows Japanese, which is seemingly because of cultural bias. lullabying (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Not an admin, but may I suggest: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard depending on which one you feel is more proper? Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but there are a lot of concerns happening at once, including conflict of interest. What I am mostly seeing is that she is rightfully pointing out that there is, to some extent, a gap of knowledge in niche industries. However, her only support of information comes from her personal experiences working as a creator in the BL manga industry and is using Wikipedia as a place to vent for editors not allowing her to make certain edits. There's original research at play, not understanding the vetting process of sources, and possible conflict of interest. I think she just wants her concerns and personal experiences acknowledged by an admin, which is why the conversations keep being cyclical and exhausting. lullabying (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also WP:COI. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I did consider this, but there are multiple issues happening at once and what I see happening is that she just wants to be heard by an administrator. lullabying (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@lullabying, these admins claim to know Japanese to varying degrees, but I cannot make amy guarantees. I asked one admin who knew Japanese, but they are unfortunately not available to help. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

User: Kurdanparez, problematic and disruptive behavioral patterns, the spread of misinformation, biased editing, ongoing hounding, arbitrary removal of content, harassment, ongoing personal attacks and insults

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

---

Hi, I have been showing forbearance toward this user for a long time, however, I am uncertain as to what further actions can be taken. They never stop. So, I would like to explain briefly. User Kurdanparez has been systematically hounding my edits, introduces unverified content into articles, removes verified data or relocates it to less visible parts, interferes with my messages in discussions that are entirely unrelated to them and not addressed to them, when they fail to refute my arguments they resort to personal attacks and "lecture" me to stay away from Wikipedia. By leveling countless unsubstantiated allegations against me that they cannot prove, they are both hindering my contributions to Wikipedia and and propagates unsubstantiated and groundless claims about me. The latest example can be seen here.

They call me liar, accuse me of distorting the truth by making baseless allegations, without providing any evidence, try to drive me away from Wikipedia by lecturing me to keep my contributions to myself and telling me that I could use them to build a cool website or write a thesis instead and after all, call me "unfriendly" and "hostile" in talk pages of other users here and accues me again here. They never stop. They are currently indefinitely blocked by an administrator on the Zaza Wiktionary for engaging in efforts to Kurdify the content, they were rejected on the English Wiktionary by another administrator again because of their Kurdifying activities, and their distorted and biased pattern of contributions was once again identified by another administrator. They claim to have a great interest in Northwestern Iranian languages, but do not even know that the Talysh language has no grammatical gender, but add to the Wikipedia article a paragraph spreading false information that "In many Northwestern Iranian languages, the Old Iranian gender distinction is preserved. This includes the Central dialects, Talysh....", as if grammatical gender actually exists in Talysh. They consistently claim that the Gurani and Zaza languages are closer to each other than to other Western Iranian languages; however, they fail to provide a single piece of evidence demonstrating the specific points on which Zaza shares a distinct proximity with Gorani, separate from other Iranian languages. They are even unaware that the notion that Zaza and Gurani constitute a so-called "Zaza–Gurani" branch is not accepted by the vast majority of Iranologists and specialists in Iranistics (Markwart 1927: 110, Hadank, 1932: 24-26; Stilo, 1981: 171; Lecoq 1989: 247-264; Windfuhr, 1989: 295, Asatrian 1995: 405-411, Gippert 1996, Paul, 1998: 166, Borjian, 2009: 63, Windfuhr, 2009: 12, Glottolog 2017, Saloumeh 2022: 27-28, Hakobian, 2022). They were also unable to explain why the Zaza language is so closely related to the Caspian languages, nor could they explain which shared innovations unite Zaza and Gurani. They overtly insert unverified or uncorroborated content into linguistic articles. Writing about linguistics is a serious matter; it is not about copy-pasting unverified content from various sources and transferring it to Wikipedia. They hound my edits everywhere, they present unsubstantiated assertions without empirical evidence and fail to prove them, consequently, upon their inability to provide evidence, they either lodge complaints against me to other users or misrepresent the content to impute blame to me, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, these are just a few examples; there are many more. They never stop. They have numerous errors; I have listed only some of them here.

Even though I knew it would be a waste of time and despite their personal attacks since the beginning, I have chosen to engage with Kurdanparez's "arguments" rather than reporting their conduct, in hopes of maintaining a constructive dialogue as can be seen. But they failed to refute even a single one of my arguments and instead began insulting me. I provided them with so many examples that they were neither able to substantiate their claims nor refute mine. I do not want this user to hound me and make baseless accusations against me and remove my edits and distort the linguistic articles. I do not want to waste the time I could spend contributing to Wikipedia on responding to this user's accusations or correcting their errors. Thanks. Vuzorg (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

First and foremost, I am in doubt, is this specifically an argument about me being wrong about the Zazaki language, or is it me being hostile?

While I may have been overreacting in past discussions on my talk page, I have apologized for it. I do not know now if you have included this as well. But we ended the discussion somewhat "civilly", but we could have been better, of course.

Since then, I have taken effort to edit on Northwestern Iranian language pages, and I've tried to be very specific as I do have a small amount of time and knowledge on this subject. I've worked extensively on the Zazaki and Gorani (whether or not they are directly related) vocabulary and grammar and I am now also actively working on incorporating this in the English Wiktionary. So no, I'm not here to target people. I want to be neutral, and if someone has a question about it, one could just notice me kindly. I don't think this is what is happening here. This has never happened by Vuzorg, and he has had plenty of time to make a decision.

"Coincidentally", every article that I am editing on seems to include a mention of Zazas first and foremost. What do I do about it? I check the sources and I can see the crucial details being left out. I invite you all to review my edits - I've been specific about article contents as well.

You accuse me of hounding. I've only edited twice in your user talk page. And then I stopped as you clearly didn't want me to write anything on there. Alright - let me write on the article talk pages then, but that doesn't do anything either, since you won't respond to me. Every time I'm writing something to you, you always have a million "arguments" ready at hand. I'm not joking - you can all take a look at all our past discussions. Even if I wrote a short message, he resorts to superficially "civil" attacks.

I believe this is a clear case of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, specifically WP:Sealioning. You are saying right now "They are even unaware that the notion that Zaza and Gurani constitute a so-called "Zaza–Gurani" branch is not accepted by the vast majority of Iranologists" - how is this relevant to my behavior?

Whether or not I'm "kurdifying" Zazas is not relevant regarding behavior. We all have different opinions on topics, the important thing is to stay on a neutral point of view.

I don't want to make a bunch of text-walls again. I am honestly tired. Kurdanparez (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I have another question for the admins. It looks like there is a big breeding ground for edit-warring, as he has consistently reverted my edits and removed sourced content. I'm therefore looking for remedies by you guys:

Diff Caspian languages

Caption: "please discuss on the talk page before making dramatic changes or removing content."

He removed sourced content about the Gorani language. The only "major" change was moving Zazaki, which is recognized as a language in a different language subgrouping under the NW Iranian language according to Glottolog, to a relevant subsection. Sources mentioned regarding Zazaki also consistently frame it from a Zazaki POV, therefore it doesn't warrant to put it on the primary paragraphs of the article.

Diff Old Azeri

Caption: "please present your proposal on the discussion page; I tried to fix the errors, but there are too many."

This is not a proposal but an elaboration of the existing sources.

Diff Gilaki

Caption: "use talk before removing the table and verify the bashkardi and gurani's situation there, the added source does not present a clear picture."

I believe it is appropriate to talk first before deciding on removing it. It's not welcoming new edits to simply delete it. Furthermore, I used talk on the Turkish Gilaki page, which you wrote and has the same sourcing, and you did not respond. Therefore, I believe it is better for you to explain why we need to keep an unsourced table on the article.

Furthermore, please check the Talysh discussion page on the Turkish Wikipedia, as this is an example of a hostile discussion by Vuzorg: Tartışma

What can we do?

I am tempted to, and I do think I have the liberty to, revert these seemingly bad faith changes, but I do not want to risk breaking rules regarding 3RR. Similar issues have occured between User:Semsûrî (whom I wrote a message to) and User:Vuzorg on the Zaza language page. That wasn't productive.

Therefore I think it is better that we settle these matters beforehand, since Vuzorg and I seem to be the "primary" editors of these pages in this current timeframe. Vuzorg is not communicating clearly with me before reverting my contributions. Kurdanparez (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• I've blocked Kurdanparez for 31 hours for violating WP:GS/KURD despite prior warnings. As they have no standing to be engaging with Kurdish topics until they reach WP:XC status, I'm not sure further action is necessary to address the conduct issues alleged here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

TPA revoke

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

---

Please revoke TPA for Ohio910 (talk · contribs), they have been misusing their talk page while blocked. RaschenTechner (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

A troll is harassing me on my user account

A troll visits my user page (User talk:Encyclopedia45) and harasses me using multiple anonymous accounts.

This troll harasses me and leaves strange comments.

~2026-41553-83 (talk · contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia45 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

~2026-41618-17 (talk · contribs)

This is the same user who stalks and attacks the Candy Candy and Keiko Nagita pages.

The troll returns whenever the protection on my page expires, just as happens with the Candy Candy and Keiko Nagita pages.

I request renewed protection for my page and that this troll's anonymous accounts be blocked. Please also closely monitor activity on the Candy Candy and Keiko Nagita pages, because the troll will attack once the protection on those pages expires.

Wikipedia has also launched an investigation into this troll's vandalistic behavior:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JustTheFacts93 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stephanie89T89/Archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stephanie89T89

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia45 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked the TAs for harassment. Fences&Windows 21:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

And I've readded semi-protection to your talk page for a month. Fences&Windows 21:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

AccessibilityProfessional2014, paid editing & potential socking

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

---

User:AccessibilityProfessional2014 made multiple promotional edits to the page International Association of Accessibility Professionals earlier this month, as can be seen in the page's edit history, containing severe copyright violations that needed to be suppressed. When confronted about this, user admitted to having engaged in undisclosed paid editing [[169]], and made a required disclosure on their userpage, albeit after lashing out over their edits being reverted [[170]]. Although they were asked not to edit the article directly, per Wikipedia consensus, they came back a week later and edited the page again [[171]]. It's also possible that this user is a sock of User:IAAPorg, who was indefed earlier this month after making a plethora of similarly copyright-violating edits to the IAAP page. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 22:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It's clear from the edits by both accounts that this is the same person operating both accounts. However, the User:IAAPorg account was blocked as representing a group, and the notice on the talk page advises one of the potential courses of action being creating a new account. This new account seems to represent an individual, so there's no basis to block them as an abusive sockpuppet. However, I have pblocked them from International Association of Accessibility Professionals for their insistence on edit warring in elements the prior account attempted to add, constituting a slow burn edit war. Further, they are ignoring the advice about making edit requests. They are welcome to continue to contribute to the talk page of the article, but they are now pblocked from editing it directly. If they create a new account to get around this, please re-report. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Grotesque racial slur

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

---

This is an atrocious example of WP:NOTHERE.

• ~2026-41635-60 is the user in question.

Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 00:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked (and TPA revoked). Morwen (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing / edit warring by Itsekiriwriting

User: Itsekiriwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Primary article: Itsekiri people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Summary

I am requesting administrator attention for a pattern of repeated large-scale unilateral edits by Itsekiriwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Itsekiri people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and related articles. The editor has made substantial removals and alterations of existing material without first seeking consensus on the article talk pages. The pattern has continued after the issue was raised.

Evidence

• [172] — substantial rewrite and removal of material.
• [173] — subsequent restoration.
• [174] — further edits after the matter was noted on the talk page.
• [175] — related removal on another article.

Similar edits have also been made on Yoruba people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Tebu community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Itsekiri language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Please see the user’s contribution history for the full pattern.

The editor has been asked to discuss proposed changes on the talk pages rather than continuing to implement them unilaterally. The editing has continued.

Requested action

Please review the contribution history, the diffs above, and the talk-page discussions. If this constitutes disruptive editing or edit warring, appropriate administrative action (including a temporary block or page protection while the content issues are discussed) would be appreciated.

I have notified the user on their talk page.

Repair it (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

one of those pages you're complaining about appears to be incorrect and not exist. Would tou like to correct it? when you do so plesse feel free to delete this comment. Morwen (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)