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

Incivility and possible bias regarding the subject of my article

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

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

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

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

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

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

I stand by my record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now I am sure of his ill treatment because @Timtrent is asking me again to confirm that I was given the rights of usage to every single media file I apploaded in the last few years, even tough I declared that already when I first uploaded the files. Itamar Sade (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Itamar Sade First, matters on Commons should be dealt with on Commons.

Second, permissions on Commons must be lodged via c:COM:VRT. Without that your declaration there is meaningless. This is the internet, where anyone may assert anything at all. There C:COM:PCP applies.

I think you need to pull your horns in and follow due process on Commons. I am sure I do not need to remind you that Wikimedia Commons is an entirely separate repository of pictures and other files form Wikipedia. If you need a better understanding then you need to read C:Commons:Scope, please.

I think it is about time that you were reminded of WP:BOOMERANG over your behaviour with your insulting slur towards me. For the avoidance of doubt, I am the son of a refugee from Hitler's Nazi Germany. My father was fired form his job because he was an ethnic Jew and had to flee to England. He and his family have/had the big, red J on their passports. Obviously this was before the term refugee was formed, since this class of displaced person is the precise reason for the term. I also have family in Israel. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Itamar Sade: Given what has now been made clear about your CoI, @Timtrent's questioning the rights of usage is perfectly legitimate. But that needs to be taken up at Commons, not here. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• I would question the propriety of a non-WP:XC paid editor editing in relation to an Israeli policy institute that primarily focuses on socioeconomic analysis of Israeli population trends that pose long-term risks to Israel, as this seems to cross into WP:PIA topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  The institute is a research facility, it does not ultimately dictate the policies of Israeli government and it Doesn't address the Arab–Israeli conflict as stated very clearly from the article. It centers on internal challenges. it's perfectly all right to question anything and anyone, that's why I placed it for reviews in the first place. There is not one single objective sentence in the article that is not backed by a citations in many high profile sources. Itamar Sade (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter how objective the article is, or how well-sourced it is, in this case. If the article relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed, then no editor who is not extended confirmed is allowed to touch it. Now - unlike how it seems some editors believe - not everything related to Israel (or Palestine, for that matter) is covered under PIA, and for the most part this draft doesn't appear to, however the section 'Emigration' does. The findings show a surge in emigration as a result of the 2023 Israeli judicial reform attempt and the subsequent war, is directly related to PIA; were this a 'live' article, that wouldn't be enough for the entire article to fall under the "ECP by default' proviso of PIA, but that paragraph would be something you are not allowed to write or edit - and, in fact, is something you are not allowed to write or edit, as the ECR applies to every namespace on Wikipedia. Now, beyond that, as noted you are indeed casting serious aspersions here and I would suggest you retract this thread, as those aspersions are the entire reason for it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive edits within many templates (primarily regarding categories)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also interesting that they have made 18 edits without a single comment or reply here. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Note: Part of this was tied to the discussion #User behaviour issues. It seems that partly due to the split that this ended up getting unresolved while the other discussion was resolved. Restoring once as a result. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I've warned them at User_talk:LoganDocMan2000#ANI_notice that if they don't engage here they will be blocked. Fences&Windows 16:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I've indeffed as NOTHERE (and the alt account) for this unserious response to my warning. Ending this trolling is necessary. Fences&Windows 16:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That looks irritating.

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

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

I'm aware you can block notifications, though I do not think that this is an effective fix due to the rate of new TAs as you can delete cookies to get a new one, alongside the concerns with their edits themselves. They've already continued pinging me, with 3 pings on a new TA (see related TAs) and continuing to make misleading edit summaries. Waxworker (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T351091

Yes, I think you're correct. There's an open feature request. It might be something we could propose for the m:Community Wishlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• As far as the pinging is concerned, WP:NOPING seems relevant here. Editors don't need to be repeatedly pinged and doing that excessively can be annoying. It's definitely concerning that the pings apparently continued even after Waxworker explicitly asked for them to stop. Whatever ~2026-39721-44's intent is, I think that needs to be addressed and a formal warning about it seems reasonable. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

They have left that TA after making two more pings after this AN/I opened and started using ~2026-43754-03, but not resumed the pinging on that TA. Waxworker, if the harassment resumes then I can play whackamole on TAs. Fences&Windows 16:21, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: - The pinging (and misleading edit summaries) has still been ongoing on related TAs - they've pinged me twice on the 15th and once on the 16th. Waxworker (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Waxworker, I've hardblock indeffed all the TAs they've edited on. This forced me to finally turn on and use TAIV properly. Fences&Windows 18:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

User behaviour issues

I wanted to bring to ANI's attention a couple of users who are persistently failing to follow rules that have been explained to them multiple times before.

• Joflaher keeps putting User:Joflaher/sandbox back into mainspace categories, despite WP:USERNOCAT — it's had to be pulled out of categories at least 29 times since it was first created, seventeen times by me and twelve times by BattyBot, and I can't speak to whether other editors have also had to remove it from categories on top of that because I only searched for myself and Battybot in the edit history. The most recent time, needless to say, was within the past hour or so. This has been addressed on their talk page before, multiple times, with their responses generally being of the "I don't understand what you're talking about" variety.
• [Stuff about second user deleted since I didn't know there was already another discussion underway about him above].

So both users clearly aren't listening when they're asked to modify their editing behaviour, and it's starting to become disruptive. I don't know that it's reached the point in either case of needing full editblocks, but it clearly needs to be escalated beyond just me addressing it by myself. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand what "putting User:joflaher/sandbox back into main categories" is. How do I avoid putting my info into main categories? If I avoid using the original version in my sandbox and when finished the info add it to the original article. Please let me know. Thank you, joflaher Joflaher (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Simple: Don't add categories to the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You avoid putting the page into categories by not putting categories on it, as has been explained to you before. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Would you please check my sandbox page now to see if is OK. If so, this is what I will do from now on. Otherwise, please give me what info on my sandbox page needs to be deleted. I will do whatever you describe. Again, thank you. joflaher Joflaher (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you see at the bottom of this edit, where you're adding several wikilinks that begin with the word "Category", and then this edit, where I'm removing them? That's what I'm talking about: pages in sandbox space cannot have categories on them, because they are not finished articles in mainspace, so you need to not add categories to the sandbox page. If you're creating or updating an article in mainspace, then that goes in categories, but your sandbox version in your personal userspace must not be in categories, and you keep it out of categories by not adding wikilinks that begin with the word "Category" to it. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have been adding to Wikipedia for about 20 years. In recent years of my texting the issue of "category" has occurred. My current text addition to "cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome" does not contain the word "category". I need you to show me where is "category" in my text. Again, thank you so much for putting up with me. joflaher Joflaher (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

< This is the last version of that text by you, follow a link, and search for a "category" "categories" word there. Then go to the currently final version > , after Bearcat removed it and compare them. ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Please forgive my but I cannot see the word "category" in my existing (as well as original) text. I never wrote "category" during my writing the text and references I also do not see this word. Would you please show me where in my text I am adding the word "category"? Sorry to bother you so much. Thank you. joflaher Joflaher (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joflaher, click the link in Bearcat's message that says "this edit". It opens a view of the edit you made, including multiple categories at the very end. Schazjmd (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I do have to say, this is exactly the same way things got derailed the last time I tried to address it in a direct one-on-one discussion: first he didn't understand what page I was talking about (even though I had already specified it), then when I kindly provided the same page link again he didn't understand how he'd put it into categories at all, then when I showed him the exact edit in which he added the page to categories he professed not to be able to find the word "category" anywhere, and then the next time the page was back in categories again he circled back to the "what page are you talking about" step for another run from the top. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If he can't see the categories in the diff, I have to question his competence, which doesn't make sense considering level of experience (#edits and longevity and advanced rights). Schazjmd (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I strongly suspect he's not actually looking at the diff at all, and instead is looking at the current version of the page, and thus failing to find the word "category" because of my edit removing the categories. (Well, either that or he didn't actually search anything at all and is just talking out of his hat...) Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Searching for category in text (of page) wouldn't provide result in either case, because they are present only as categories there (thus removing of them make no difference for a very this search). They are, obviously, searchable in provided diffs, and, also, search is normally done not verbatim way only. ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

That's only true in view mode. If you search a page in edit mode, then you see each individual category as a standalone declaration beginning with "Category", not as a block beginning with "Categories" — and, for that matter, in any mode, search results get found and highlighted with every letter you type, so searching for the singular instead of the plural (or vice versa) is no excuse, because you will have found both the plural "categories" and the singular "category" before you've even finished typing the word. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess it's prove that no search has been done in edit mode, definitely.

Real problem is: there is a whole template that is used to encourage editors to experiment in their own sandbox instead of existing articles; to not break something in process. Turned out it's possible to accidentally break stuff merely by copying some article into own sandbox, like in this case. Are there some other similar examples, when editor could break something unintentionally merely editing their own sandbox? (I don't mean some special abuse possible to be done via it, only honestly accidental.)
+ Not in case when it copied as is into a field (I understand, yes, just mean that it's technically true, that it is not searchable there with that prompt. And I tried to write it in hope it would be easier for them to find the source of all that ongoing confusion if they're would read it; I'm not trying to show for you that they're doing it all right etc). ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Likely they're just literally searched for the verbatim "category"; there is indeed no match then, I just did the exactly mistake on my own.
UPD Not explain the directly provided diff with not-yet-glued "category"es indeed. ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If he searched the exact link I gave him to search, he would hit the verbatim "category" three times. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I cannot see the word "category" in my existing (as well as original) text. I never wrote "category" during my writing the text

I meant that in very this form it is true, as it's not searchable then, and likely they were copied from somewhere as a bulk, so not "written". Not explains the directly provided diff, as I wrote the same time as you did above. ~2026-44096-32 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joflaher, may I suggest that you use Template:Draft categories if you're working on a draft or sandbox. You could put the categories in the template like this:

{{Draft categories|[[Category:Foo]]
[[Category:Bar]]
}}

The links will show up on your draft or sandbox, but will not categorize the page unless it is moved into article space. If the template is used in article space, the categories work as normal. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I was going to ask, can't categories in unfinished drafts (especially in personal sandboxes) be commented out (instead of outright deletion) so they can easily be uncommented when moved to mainspace; but {{Draft Categories}} may in fact be a better solution. --~2026-44023-18 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't solve problem that it's already a rather complicated advanced edit, that inexperienced user wouldn't knew that they're also have to perform when they're instructed to work on draft in their sandbox. So they're copying some existing article they're want to work on into it, and it break stuff because it still contain original categories in it. If having an existing categories in draft/sandbox is purely disruptive, maybe it is possible to have some automatized exclude of them from being included into "real" categories? If it is never of any good possible use from it anyway. ~2026-44212-49 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

When I'm working with the Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories report, I have to check a sometimes very large number of categories that have userspace content in them all in one go. Today's generation of the report isn't so bad; yesterday's had 300 categories on it. It's already a one to two hour job even doing it the quickest possible way, and would be a three to six hour job if I had to spend three times as long on each individual page.
For example, the categories on a userspace page aren't always where they're supposed to be — I regularly see sandbox pages whose creators have placed categories at the top of the page rather than the bottom, or somewhere in the middle of the page, or even in multiple distinct places within the same page (e.g. an "omnibus" sandbox page that has several discrete topics on it, each with their own standalone category blocks, or occasionally even people who somehow think [[Category:Something something]] is how you do section headers), which means that just wrapping categories can explode into a much, much more time-consuming job than just removing them. As well, sometimes draft and sandbox pages get filed in redlinked categories that don't even exist at all, or in categories that wouldn't be the correct ones for its subject even if it were a real article in mainspace — and there's absolutely no benefit whatsoever to leaving nonexistent categories or incorrect miscategorizations on a page even in disabled form, because if and when the page gets moved into mainspace it will just end up back in those very same bad categories and have to be cleaned up again. So even if I just disable categories (which I do on draftspace pages), I still have to remove categories that are completely wrong or nonexistent regardless.
From your perspective as an outsider, you're just seeing the one userpage that happened to hit your awareness matrix, so the extra few seconds it takes to just wrap a block of categories instead of removing them doesn't seem like that much of a burden — but as the person who's actually doing the work, I have to gnome my way through fixing dozens or hundreds of improperly categorized sandbox pages all at once, meaning that spending a few extra seconds on each individual page adds up to whole extra hours getting the entire batch done, extra hours that people don't have a right to demand of me in a volunteer context.
Also, the argument that wrapping categories on sandbox pages somehow prevents a page from being returned to categories a second or third time, because editors who would readd removed categories to the page somehow wouldn't unwrap wrapped categories on the page, just isn't accurate at all — I see pages where somebody has removed a previously-added draft categories wrapper, or reenabled colon-disabled categories, on a draft or sandbox page all the time, so simple disabling of categories simply doesn't prevent pages from getting readded to categories one bit better than removal does. Its only benefit is courtesy, and it has absolutely no effectiveness whatsoever as a recidivism prevention tactic. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(Suggestion) Bearcat, why don't we leave this discussion for Joflaher. For LoganDocMan2000, the second half of your comment could be added to #Disruptive edits within many templates (primarily regarding categories) above which is already about LoganDocMan2000. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair, I didn't realize there was already a discussion about Logan underway. Yeah, I'll accept that advice. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@JoflaherYou mentioned you've been editing for 20 or so years, has anything changed in your workflow for editing articles/sandboxes that might explain the confusion? Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't think of anything that would explain my confusion as to why I had no problems editing until about 3 years ago. I am now trying to do my editing while looking to delete any [[Category:]] that pops up. I did a bit of work today on my sandbox but did no see any [[Category:]] pop ups. I will earnestly keep looking and hope that you or someone else checks my sandbox for the [[Category:]] popups during the next few days. In checking for them, do not erase but just let me know that you found them. Thank you. joflaher Joflaher (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

After looking over the discussion, it seems like this was a genuine misunderstanding, and since Joflaher appears to be making a good-faith effort to fix the problem now that it's been explained, I don't think this needs to be treated as a behavioral issue for this user anymore. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully. That does leave the other issue mentioned, which has been restored above. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

User:IZAK

Historically, User:IZAK has been noted to engage in disruptive behavior. There was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673#Proposal to sanction IZAK, etc.

Sadly, this has not stopped, despite the numerous discussions on their behavior and their long years on Wikipedia.

For example, this administrator openly says that IZAK told them to vote on a discussion at Special:Diff/1367580564 and Special:Diff/1367581535. This was presumably done off-wiki, since I couldn't find the notification in their talk page history. This is even more worring.

Also, User:Yonkeltron, who had not not edited since December 2025, suddenly breaks their leave to vote in two low-level discussions that IZAK also happened to vote on Special:Diff/1367579059 and Special:Diff/1367578785. The notification for this was also off-wiki.

This canvassing was after he reverted some changes I made by on some categories (Special:Diff/1367279187, Special:Diff/1367279275, Special:Diff/1367279328), so he also WP:HOUNDED me.

He also bludgeoned the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in East Africa page.

Interestingly, when he was informing WikiProjects of that discussion, he did not bother to notify the Africa WikiProject. Only Jewish ones, and for some reason, the Israel WikiProject (Special:Diff/1367409688, Special:Diff/1367409688, Special:Diff/1367409084). I think this was done because he wanted to have people with his POV vote there. This is because of the omission of notification of a relevant WikiProject, and the notification of an irrelevant one.

I think it is time to say that enough is enough, and put an end to this user's continuous disruption by indefinitely blocking them. It is unlikely for someone who has not learned in 23 years to learn in some more. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Response by IZAK

There was no canvassing, just normal editing. And yes, I tend to edit on the WP:BEBOLD and WP:IGNOREALLRULES side sometimes when I am deep into writing up articles for WP not just for hours but for days on end. This is a case of sour grapes and a sore loser who failed in his AfDs for articles that he wanted deleted but that I recently worked hard to improve, namely: History of the Jews in East Africa, History of the Jews in North Africa, History of the Jews in Southern Africa which HerrHeuluse resents because an admin closed the AfD discussion as Keep, see @Dr vulpes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in East Africa for more on this. There is no such rule that once articles or categories are nominated for deletion that "because of WP:CANVASS" an editor is never allowed to communicate with another editor or WP project under any circumstances about anything, anywhere any time as if the article and the AfD is radioactive and embargoed and belongs to the nominator only as if he were the WP:OWNer of it. The old case against me over 20 years ago was when the rules for canvassing were not clear and when I was a newby editor unaware of the rules, but I have abided by such rules since then. HerrHeulesse is attributing things to me and reading into my edits all sorts of conspiracy theories and he also violates WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. This complaint is baseless and it just shows how far some editors will go even if they lose AfDs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that this user, instead of even apologizing for off-site canvassing, engages in WP:PA. Obviously users who will report bad behavior from other users will be those who are in disagreement with them. This is common sense, and does not devalue my complaint. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm far more interested in who User:HerrHeulsuse is, who has been here for one month, and has made over 1,500 edits, many in CTOPs. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, this report is weak stuff to ask for an indef block. User:HerrHeulsuse, don't try to weaponise AN/I. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Fences&Windows 21:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

While I agree that this user's actions surrounding the AfD came close to or even exceeded the threshold for Wikipedia:Canvassing and that this user's temperament can be aggressive and unilateral, having had several rather unpleasant and circular interactions with them recently, their actions don't come close to warranting an indef, especially not as displayed here. I would certainly appreciate it if IZAK would think a bit more about how they interact with others, try to understand other users' points a bit more, and take a bit more time thinking out and crafting their edits, though. LPHaddleburg (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, it would help if they cut down their comments to half their current size on the noticeboards. If they want, they can link to longer comments elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Good to hear from you again. You must be referring to very old edits by me going back to the early 2000s when WP was new, discussions were more free flowing and wide ranging and the accepted thinking was talk pages were for talk since WP:NOTPAPER. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I am referring to your above comment which comes to about 264 words. Maybe try to keep it down to 100 and then link to longer comments elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Compared to the "plaintiff" in this case my responses by comparison are far shorter than his growing list of allegations against me. At this time I am being as brief as I possibly can in response to his very lengthy and mostly false and testy accusations. IZAK (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Izak, you already know that the persuasive value of a defensive response tends to be inversely correlated with its length, as readers increasingly encounter it as TL;DR. Is there something preventing you from incorporating this into your writing style? Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

IZAK could be compelled to a limit of 500 words per thread. Otherwise, the evidence against him is thin. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Most unfair, why would you wish to WP:CENSOR an editor who is a gifted writer as if this was Twitter/X limiting words and sentences? There is no reason to limit good faith free expression by editors on talk pages as long as they are to the point, logical and factual. Has there ever been such a WP policy to limit talk in threads by editors to "500 word"? I strongly doubt it. IZAK (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The reason is to make communication effective and efficient for everyone. These rules were once encoded but have been lost over time. I repeat them here: Get to the point. Avoid huge walls of text. Make one clear point. Provide context. Don't ramble. That's it. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I would not look amazed if I got imposed the same limitation. Sometimes I talk too much. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I fully support your and my freedom of speech because WP:NOT CENSORED! IZAK (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Yonkeltron and he should not be able to vote in the same discussions, it's pretty clear that he is at least habitually canvassed considering the overlap and inactivity. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is whataboutism. Clearly, someone who wants action taken against another user must provide evidence against that user. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if I am missing something, but the responses by IZAK here and at deletion discussions appear to be well within the bounds of readability compared to the walls of text you often see by accusers/the accused (#~2026-41404-95 and Zirthes?). -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@IZAK: Are your overlaps with Yonkeltron really just coincidences? There is such an extensive record of them? For some reason, it seems like you and he both vote the exact same on every AfD you share. Some of these votes have very small gaps, and then there are other obscure pages which you both edit but with a long time gap.

I notice that you literally notified him of a discussion User talk:Yonkeltron#Messianic prophecies (disambiguation). After there was some action against your behavior, its probable that you started emailing them or communicating in some other way. This means that Yonkeltron is your WP:MEATSOCK

Same with that admin .

There is also this overlap, , this with a banned account, this huge overlap makes it seem like you're the same person, ,

There were two previous attempts to deal with this user's disruption, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2. The complaints there can still be found in this user's behavior.

It's also pretty clear that you have tried to curry favor with users so that they will take your side in disputes. This can be seen with one of the people who did this with's comments on your talk page Special:Diff/187884372, Special:Diff/193002880, Special:Diff/186333390, Special:Diff/187080128. As expected, they do return the favor with this comment

Also, does anyone want proof that this user continuously bludgeons discussions? Then look through his edit log.

• This discussion where he participates, he makes up about 37% of the text
• In this one , he is at 27%, just behind User:tgeorgescu
• 35%
• 30%
• 10%

from 2014 and before

• 48%
• 24%
• 26%
• 49%
• 41%
• 13%
• 36%
• 36%
• 35%
• 28%
• 18%
• 14%
• 18%
• 39%
• 29%
• 22%
• 23%
• 16%
• 33%

If anyone else's bad behavior continued for so long, so intensely, especially while editing about one of the most persecuted group's in the planet, then they'd surely be blocked. So why the exception for this user? HerrHeulsuse (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@HerrHeulsuse: There is no rule for how long comments should or should not be simply because WP:NOTPAPER see also this: . Your arguments are ridiculous. You merely prove that in almost 24 years I have made more friends on WP than enemies, is that a crime, according to you it is. You cannot arrive at WP:CONSENSUS unless you have things in common with others who share your editorial interests. I have no idea who @Yonkeltron: is, he is an entirely independent editor, and we are not connected in any way beyond the fact that we share a common interest in articles about Jews, Judaism and Israel. Kindly stop attributing falsehoods to me, such as he's a "meat puppet" when I have absolutely no clue who he is and I have no connection to him. As for you bringing records about my voluminous edits, it only shows that over the years I have been a very active editor. I would suggest that you kindly Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Finally the couple of past ArbCom cases, 20 years ago, that involved me were because I was over-zealous in fighting ANTISEMITIC editors who were harassing me and vandalizing WP with their Jew-hate. I hope you don't object to that aspect of those cases and at least give me the benefit of the doubt per WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not seeing how the majority of these cases would qualify as bludgeoning. At Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process: Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions. IZAK's comments are somewhat longer than those from other editors, sure, but they're contained within their own thread and don't extend to refuting every other editor individually (which is usually the identifying feature of bludgeoning). I don't see Cunard being accused of bludgeoning even though their contributions to deletion discussions are often quite long. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER applies to article content, if it applied to discussions too, WP:BLUDGEON wouldn't exist. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

IZAK's vote in AfDs is quite predictive of outcomes. I wonder whether that is best explained by "bad behavior" on their part, complicated coordination via canvassing/meatpuppetry, or by participants and closers being highly susceptible to bludgeoning etc., or simply by IZAK having a decent understanding of AfD related community norms? The last option seems quite likely. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@HerrHeulsuse: You keep on attributing dark and sinister negative motives to me as if that is my "style" on WP when in fact I have created and improved thousands of articles and categories without any problems over 24 years. I do believe that in 99.9% of the time I have abided by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style! If you look at WP:BLUDGEON you will see that it also states: "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Everyone should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building". Just as I naturally can write up articles I also can likewise respond on talk or AfD/CfD pages. That's called a logical and factual presentation. In fact this whole one-sided argument of yours started when I went ahead and fully expanded the 3 articles History of the Jews in East Africa, History of the Jews in North Africa, History of the Jews in Southern Africa that you had nominated for deletion - how come you didn't accept that as WP:NOTPAPER in those cases? Yeah, I know you said it was "synthesis" but it's not, as the successful AfD Keep result proved which you are now disputing as well per WP:LAWYERING. Please stop your vendetta against me it does not become any serious editor. By the way, I have a question for you, if you as you claim you have been on WP for one month only, how come you are so familiar with all the methods of WP, and the fine print and minutiae of WP policies that would normally take years to learn? IZAK (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what type of intellectual or educational difficulty someone needs to have for them to take years to understand Wikipedia policies that added up, would be less than 100 pages long, but I don't seem to have them. And I don't even understand all 100 pages, only some about notability and some about behavior. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't have much to say but I saw you pop up in my watchlist and I was meaning to question it, but of course I forgot which article. However, it's clear here that this isn't your first rodeo at Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@HerrHeulsuse: Congratulations that you don't have any learning disabilities. I still don't see how anyone can master, and smoothly apply, all the nuances of WP policies within one month, on top of mastering the technical side of WP with all the bells and whistles and ease of doing deep dives into WP archives and stats as you do, not to mention your busy schedule of getting into Wikipedia:Contentious topics on WP as noted by @Black Kite: such as Islam, terrorism, Jews and whatnot, all while you merrily start and get involved with controversial AfDs and CfDs, and then also spending plenty of time here at AN/I attacking me and raking me over the coals as if you have known me for ages. No wonder you have raised the suspicions of others such as by @Black Kite: and @Fences and windows: above as to who you really are and what your aims are at WP altogether?! IZAK (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

HerrHeulsuse's attempts to delete nearly 50 Holocaust deniers categories

Very worrisome: While away and not responding to this still open and ongoing discussion at AN/I @HerrHeulsuse: has not been idle but has, for example, launched a massive WP:CFD attack to delete dozens of Holocaust denier categories that includes hundreds of Holocaust deniers by country, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 August 18#Genocide and atrocity deniers wherein he nominates almost FIFTY categories for deletion! This is a very worrisome development! Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Electricmemory - edit warring, and refusing to discuss despite active talk page discussion

There’s a content dispute at Gettysburg Regional Airport regarding the inclusion of a non-notable paragraph, which was being discussed between @Dfadden and myself on the article talk page - Talk:Gettysburg Regional Airport#Non-notable event in accidents and incidents. The discussion had petered out on the 29th July, and there weren’t any edits on the topic.

On 9th August, Electricmemory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) restored the content, so I pinged them in the talk page discussion since there was an active discussion. However, instead of discussing, they began accused me of WP:OWN - BRD is irrelevant here. Two people are in agreement that it belongs here, you don’t have the final say. You are rapidly approaching WP:OWN behaviour (discussing a dispute is article ownership?), and have refused to engage - instead restoring the disputed content, despite Dfadden and myself having previously coming to a compromise before Electricmemory had joined the discussion regarding its inclusion - Talk:Gettysburg Regional Airport#c-Dfadden-20260811072800-Danners430-20260810215800.

ElectricMemory’s attitude is summed up in their last comment - Your idea of “discuss it” seems to mean “agree with me or I will drag you around various noticeboards until you capitulate”, so no, I’m not interested. I was planning to go to WP:DR, which is literally standard process when consensus can’t be reached - in this case one had been reached, but Electricmemory is deciding to ignore it and restore their version instead. That isn’t WP:FORUMSHOPPING, it’s standard process. In the event, due to that last comment making it clear they’re not interested in engaging in any meaningful way, I feel this belongs here instead - not to find a solution to the dispute, that belongs elsewhere - but to try and find a solution to Electricmemory’s impossible attitude when it comes to discussing disputes. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If the case is only two people support something vs. one people, then obviously the two people's consensus should be applied, as it is simply more consensual. Jako96 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

So we vote now…? That’s news… but again, I’m not here to try and find a solution to the dispute - that’s for the talk page or if need be WP:DRN. I’m concerned that another editor is edit warring and explicitly refusing to discuss. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

"So we vote now...?" no, two people supporting one thing over another editor is definitely more consensual and according to our policies. I also directly tried to solve your issue by recommending that the option that is most consensual should be selected in such a case. And, to be frank, this is clearly not a chronic problem, therefore it's definitely the subject of DRN and not here. Jako96 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. It's entirely possible for two people to argue versus one and the two to be wrong on policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but please note that this is not about being wrong on a policy, it's about that content. If they aren't discussing this with other editors, Bushranger, obviously they are at that time FORCED to apply the most consensual one. But if it's not obvious, discussing it with other editors is a better option. Jako96 (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that the person who Danners was initially in dispute which has since agreed to compromise with him over the dispute, so now Electricmemory is editwarring over an already resolved issue that even numberwise has been established via consensus. — Knightoftheswords 22:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly what I'm tryna say, thank you. There IS an issue here. Jako96 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say that two persons could not be wrong against one, they could absolutely be. I'm just saying that the most consensual option at that time. Jako96 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If not discussed broadly, would you rather the two editor's or the other one editor's choice be applied to an article? I think the answer is obvious here. Jako96 (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I first came across Electricmemory with this discussion a few days ago, where even though I was somewhat on their side, I still was taken aback by the weird level of antagonism and vitriol they came with to the proposer. I did a brief overview of their history via their talk page and found that they've had a history of tendentious and acrimonious editing, including edit-warring and WP:ASPERSIONS (empty accusations of vandalism and WP:PROMO), as well as WP:OWN and stylistic issues, compounded with issues regarding adding unsourced content and expecting other editors to pick up the slack on that front (WP:BURDEN). Some prominent examples are here, here (WP:SUMEXPLAIN), here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

They were blocked for a day in March over edit-warring in March. Mind you that the current dispute at hand has seen a compromise between Dfadden (talk · contribs) (the other editor) and Danners, where they agreed to put the event in a different part of the article; Electricmemory is thus edit-warring to maintain a problem that's already been resolved. — Knightoftheswords 22:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This kind of persistent, mindless mashing of the revert button seems indicative of a battleground mentality – someone who'd rather win an edit war than actually improve the article. The explicit refusal to discuss the issue further and the violation of WP:ONUS means I'm blocking for 72 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I neither agree with nor condone Electricmemory's actions in restoring the disputed content. This unnecessarily inflamed a dispute that I had sought a compromise specifically to de-escalate. With that said, I think the claims of WP:OWN behaviour on the part of Danners430 are not completely unfounded in this case. Of particular concern to me is Danners' assertion that You are the person wishing to add content - therefore it is on you to gain consensus for it to be added. It’s not on me to gain consensus for content which was just added to be removed. There is no policy that requires an editor to gain the approval of (or, reach consensus with) another editor before adding content that is supported by reliable sources, even if the article was subject to a prod!

For context, Danners initially prodded this article as not meeting the GNG, along with several others that I deprodded as sources were easily located. I located sources and used them to expand this article before deprodding it. Danners initially reverted this with the edit summary that’s neither an accident nor an incident. This is a preposterous statement as it clearly was, by any definition, an incident, including the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. I undid the reversion and immediately opened a thread on Danners' talk page here. Rather than engage there and clarify, Danners continued to repeatedly revert the content and argue via edit summaries demanding I "take it to the talk page" whilst I was actively working to add additional sources and expand the article. They then posted an edit-warring template to my own talk page and when I pointed out I had already opened a thread on their talk page they responded "What part of discuss it on the talk page is unclear?" I have outlined the timeline of the diffs involved in the thread here, demonstrating that this was a very rapid exchange and I was trying my best to engage while multi-tasking.

In my view, it was an unreasonable escalation. I don't know if this rises to the level of WP:OWN, but it is at least an example of a pattern of WP:INCIVILITY. I also don't believe this incident alone is worthy of a sanction. However, Danners should realise their hastiness to nominate articles for deletion, use the revert button, and insist that WP:BRD is the only way to address content concerns instead of first discussing or making small corrective edits isn't collaborative and drives away editors who want to help improve unsourced or poorly sourced aviation content. These concerns have previously been raised by myself and other members of WP:AVIATION here (User talk:Danners430/Archive 10#Better solution?) and an administrator here (User_talk:Danners430/Archive_10#Sourcing in tables). Dfadden (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

You are replying to a post in which I linked to a policy that explicitly says the onus for getting consensus is on the person who wants to add disputed content. It's like I'm talking into a void. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that User_talk:Danners430/Archive_10#Sourcing in tables isn't the greatest example to raise here, considering it shows an administrator telling Danners430 that adding unsourced information is OK and they should source it themselves. I note the admin concerned has been warned for their uncivil behaviour in this regard. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate A "void" huh? I read WP:What ONUS means - I am happy for you to provide further links to educate me if you still think you are talking to a "void", but that explanatory essay describes ONUS as a process to work through to move content when an editor feels that it is in the wrong place. Nowhere does it mention deleting properly sourced content outright. This is exactly my point - Had Danners initially moved the content to a different section and pinged me to explain what their issues were with the content, fine. Even reverting it with an edit summary along the lines of "I dispute the relevance of this content, lets discuss at (venue x)" would have avoided any perceived edit warring and reached consensus far sooner. Instead, they reverted an addition of sourced content with a non-sensical edit summary and then proceeded to argue about which talk page they would engage on and escalate the situation with statements like ""What part of discuss it on the talk page is unclear?" after I had already attempted to discuss the issue on their talk page.

@Black Kite Thanks for that link, I was unaware of that thread and I agree its probably not the best example in light of that. However, my point was to highlight that Danners' style of editing is viewed as problematic many experienced editors. Notwithstanding the later warning, the admin called out my edit as a more constructive approach to fixing easily surmountable problems. I took this as endorsement for my approach and it validated the feedback provided to Danners in the other example I provided. Especially given this related to the user's first edit, I supported the fix with an talk page message to the a brand new user explaining the fix and the policy requirement to help the editor understand and improve, instead of just slapping them with a high level warning template as Danners did. Dfadden (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

If I may highlight another example of similar behaviour from June to demonstrate there is history here and this was not an isolated incident. Danners reverted this edit I made to Adelaide Airport , - when i took this to Danners talk page for discussion and asked what the problem was, given the sources in the paragraph verify the information, Danners replied that they had not bothered to read the citations to verify the information before reverting me twice . Danners considered the positioning of the inline citations to be a problem - a personal preference they could have easily fixed by moving the cite themself in less time than it took to engage in a long talk page discussion. In that discussion, I pointed out was in alignment with the guidance at WP:CITEFOOT . Nevertheless, I made the change to keep the peace. Dfadden (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Responding to this sentence: "There is no policy that requires an editor to gain the approval of (or, reach consensus with) another editor before adding content that is supported by reliable sources"

Although WP:ONUS doesn't say it can't be added, it does say the approval must be gained to keep it after the content is put up for dispute. BrandNewSaint (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@BrandNewSaint that's a fair comment, although per WP:BRD-NOT unless a reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of the BRD cycle - there was no valid reason given to revert the change in the first place. Again, there is no policy that says we can just revert sourced content without providing a valid rationale. No policy rationale was given, only an assertion that an incident was not actually an incident, which I immediately tried to discuss on Danners' talk page to clarify. Dfadden (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 keep in mind that notability doesn't apply to article content. Much content on Wikipedia within articles does not meet notability guidelines and that is by design (WP:ARTN). Editors are supposed to be adding content that is non-notable to articles on broader notable topics. Katzrockso (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Which is why I’m careful to use the word “notable”, but not linking to any Wikipedia policy - notable is still an English adjective outwith WP namespace. We don’t add every last WP:RUNOFTHEMILL thing that happens to articles - there has to be a line somewhere as to what gets included and what’s just too minor. There is of course no hard and fast policy - I personally agree with the criteria listed at WP:AIRCRASH as a very good starting point to determine what is notable and what isn’t.

The clear cut ones are for example an emergency diversion due to a medical issue… these happen nearly daily across the world. If we included them all in articles, we’d be swamped and in clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Then there are the less clear cut examples, like what prompted this dispute - that’s when discussion is needed, which is what Dfadden and I were doing when the subject of this thread waded in, refusing to discuss. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:51, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 I would encourage you to review WP:BRD-NOT. Specifically for Gettysburg BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of the BRD cycle. You did not indicate any policy or guideline in any of your edit summaries, nor did you respond to my attempts to discuss on your talk page to contest the vague edit summary. You instead reverted me again and insisted that I needed to discuss on the article talk per BRD. Similarly, in the diffs I provided above relating to Adelaide Airport, BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.

I have many times acknowledged our goals editing in this space are broadly the same, and I do believe that despite our different editing styles, you have made many constructive contributions. However, I have requested on several occasions that where you have questions or concerns about my work or pages I have contribute to, please raise these directly on my talk page before immediately reverting or deleting . I am happy to work through the issue as we did here . Please try to understand that instead of just discussing your concerns with me, continuing to revert sourced content with vague edit summaries that don't provide any policy rationale, or revert constructive edits because you don't like the positioning of citations you didnt actually confirm, this comes across as inflammatory and disruptive. It does begin to look like a few of the Examples of ownership behavior, whether that is your intention or not. Dfadden (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m just pinging @Electricmemory as we haven’t heard from them, and it’s only fair to keep this open to give them a chance to respond now the block has expired. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

They still haven't edited, so keeping this open in the interest of fairness to allow them to respond Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Obenritter personal attacks as status quo stonewalling

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

Links that show that I was engaging with the substance up until now.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Adolf_Hitler#c-Lumbering_in_thought-20260811112600-Obenritter-20260401193800
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Adolf_Hitler#c-Lumbering_in_thought-20260811113900-Kierzek-20260402140800

Obenritter has escalated from merely likely to be considered WP:SQS to now credibly so by resorting to personal attacks with the statement that people [such as me …] in [their] estimation [border] on apologism. The remedy should be a block until an eventual attainment of mea culpa or of course just a warning on an immediate such. I would argue in a potential counterclaim that I was failing WP:AGF, that I was doing WP:GLUE i.e. building my argument to, per my first sentence, "credibly" accuse bad faith over here. The problem is definitely chronic, urgent less so. Lumbering in thought (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This claim that I have a chronic history of personal attacks is entirely unfounded. My point was not directed specifically at Lumbering in thought as much as the lengthy discussion, which had been essentially decided by consensus. There is a history of editors trying to apply euphemistic phrasing around the subject of Nazis writ large over the years, so if by implication it seemed directed at the editor making this complaint singularly, my apologies. To suggest that I was not engaging with the substance of the argument in the thread and my content throughout was somehow entirely ad hominem would be disingenuous, to say the least. Other editors who have participated in this discussion in the past, such as Kierzek and/or Diannaa, can certainly attest to my substantive reasoning, even if I clumsily added a dose of vitriol given the subject matter's sensitive nature. --Obenritter (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterization of the title, because of adverb "as". The chronic nature (which someone may have to correct me) are the two instances of SQ stonewalling. In this incident the acceptance of personal attacks made it obvious that the amount you grappled with the edit summary substance until my arrival which I would characterize as "running roughshod" was done in bad faith. So "I added a dose of vitriol" is also a mischaracterization. Lumbering in thought (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Lumbering in thought: Just to make sure I have the timeline correct here, we have this discussion at Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler that was seemingly resolved in April, that was then restarted by yourself days ago per their own diffs, that Obenritter responded once to, which then led you to seek a block or warning on Obenritter from the Arbitration Committee before then coming here seeking the same action. Do I got that right? Super Goku V (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Two points in my favor per WP:WHENCLOSE is that it was a contentious topic and allowance for "months" later specifically. We can gauge the amount the OP grappled with the edit summary substance until my arrival which I would characterize as "running roughshod". In my past, I was escalated immediately to Arbcom over nothing like a personal attack, so I'll take that on the chin. So, no, you "got that wrong." Lumbering in thought (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Super Goku V your synopsis of the timeline and situation is correct. I find it very disingenuous and uncalled for that Lumbering in thought has escalated what should have remained a talk page or member page discussion to this level. It strikes me more as a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to say the least. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Lumbering in thought: I have been working alongside Obenritter on improving our articles on Nazi Germany topics for more than ten years, and can confirm that he definitely does not have a history of chronically personally attacking other editors. I have found him to be polite and knowledgeable with a very deep knowledge of German history in particular. He is a real asset to the small team of editors maintaining and improving our articles on this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This seems to erase that I even brought a complaint. Assuming it's not, if everything is as you say, it should not be hard to get a mea culpa. In a world where we didn't care about intent at all, though, I believe I touched on that in the abstract in my The Cynic's Appendix vs. WP:TLDR and came out on your side. Lumbering in thought (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

References

I understand the first sentence of this post; you appear to be requesting that Obenritter apologise for saying " It astonishes me that people want to soften language surrounding the self-destructive actions of the arguably the most sinister Nazi figure of all—let alone that of his immediate leadership coterie—and in my estimation borders on apologism", which you perceived as a personal attack on yourself?

Other recent posts in this section indicate that you believe the question of status quo stonewalling has not been addressed. Reviewing the talk page posts and the article history, I don't see Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling taking place as described in the essay, which calls for making a change without giving a substantive rationale based in policy or entering into discussion, and persisting in spite of consensus being against them. We did have discussion, and at its end four of us favored the change and one opposed. I see the following events:

1. Obenritter noticed an edit that changed "committed suicide" to "died by suicide" and reverts. He immediately goes to the talk page to explain his reasoning.
2. Update Nerd voices an objection to the removal.
3. Obenritter replies to Update Nerd.
4. Kierzek supports the removal, and notes we've talked about this issue in the past.
5. Pincrete supports the removal.
6. Diannaa (that's me) expresses agreement with Pincrete. When the discussion petered out on April 2, there were 4 in favor of removal and one opposed.
7. Four and a half months later, Lumbering in thought objects to Obenritter's edit.
8. Obenritter responds to Lumbering in thought's comments.
9. Lumbering in Thought files a request for arbitration, which is declined.
10. Lumbering in thought files this ANI report.

@Lumbering in thought when you say "came out on your side" are you talking to me? If so, when did you come out on my side? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

While it may seem that you are being neutral by adding more context, I would argue my original summary "such as [myself]" with square brackets was more accurate, the defendant already admitting it to be "[clumsy]" i.e. a wikt:vaguepost. The defendant was talking about the current consensus, and then pitted the group with himself, the status quo, vs the changers, as explained. And I find it concerning that you being in one of these groups hasn't led to an intent to disclaim recusal from adjudication of this incident. Such an admin is hastened to consult the diff. Lumbering in thought (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no "defendant" here, and it's a really bad adversarial mindset to have. Any editor whose contributions are causing issues, whether Obenritter's, yours, or any other person's are equally open to being examined. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief, Diannaa's summary of events above seems both fair and complete, and I endorse everything she says earlier about Obenritter's skills and (in my experience), excellent judgement and exemplary courtesy to others. I'm one of the handful of editors involved in, what I would not even characterise as a dispute, merely a mild disagreement about phrasing. So I'm involved.

Having said that, I see nothing to discuss here. There was no stonewalling nor any PA's. The mildly critical post about people who seek to 'soften language' about Nazis 'borders on apologism'. Isn't even directed at 'lumbering'. It's a generalised comment about one of the dangers of dealing with Nazi subjects. Veer too strongly in detailing the sins of the Nazis and what you have is simply a context-less 'attack page', veer too far in the 'fairness' directtion and the article starts to euphemise and thus seemingly to excuse.

IMO there is nothing to discuss here. The only realistic outcome would be a 'boomerang' and perhaps it would be better for someone to close this before that becomes necessary. Pincrete (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

This comment which I would characterize as "smoothing the edges" to me is a ripe opportunity for an uninvolved admin to compare and contrast using the paragraph WP:Status_quo_stonewalling#What_is_status_quo_stonewalling?, backing my decision not to allege WP:POV Railroad. Contrary to objections, labels may be used to productively add to a collegial and congenial environment per WP:AVOIDABUSE, be it "filer" and "filee" or the language used. I would submit to the summary of events that before my arrival I had noticed Special:Diff/1368834885 a similar page which was internally inconsistent, which provoked my casual interest in the page in question. Lumbering in thought (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand half of that, nor more pertinently how it justifies making serious accusations against another editor. Posting on this noticeboard is itself a serious matter. An off-wiki analogy would be reporting someone to the police/to management. Doing so without substantive reasons is both unreasonable to the person accused and a waste of resources. In the real world the resources are police/management time, here on WP the resource is the goodwill, time and energy of other editors and admins. A ripe opportunity for an uninvolved admin to compare and contrast … really doesn't "pass the sniff test". Pincrete (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Stylistically speaking, I've been attempting to treat this thread like all manner of serious consensus-building exercises on Wikipedia (not formal or informal polling that paragraph touches on), with the assumption that whoever I'm replying to will take it upon themselves to catch up on the latest here before replying. To avoid WP:BLUDGEON this is solved in my opinion by making it clear how the events are summarized according to the version of events I subscribe to using freely absorbed evidence in the rest of the thread. But if I were to add more precision to that summary it would be "having its only new contribution to be to smooth or obscure the unsmooth edges of the allegations against the defendant" to make it clear I wasn't saying there were any unsmooth edges on my part. Lumbering in thought (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be any substantive basis for a report here, having reviewed the diffs and discussions identified. Lumbering in thought's rejoinders to other editors weighing in here don't inspire confidence in their rhetorical approach to disagreement (there's a lack of AGF, in addition to being overly legalistic and rather pompous), but given that no one has identified them as being disruptive in relation to article content, I don't think this quite rises to the level of meriting a boomerang sanction, although I did consider a logged warning to remember to assume good faith as a WP:CT/EE action. I would suggest that this discussion be closed without further action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Stats bot concerns

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

This user's main contributions are updating Australian Football League player stat tables. Per a discussion here, the automatic updates appears to be a stats bots that is synced with the AFL Tables database. The-Pope flagged with Electricmaster compliance concerns with WP:BOTP and per this revert, might be an "unapproved bot".

At Oliver Hayes-Brown, Electricmaster's edits have multiple times removed the {{AFL|Ric}} template. See here 6 May, here 12 May, here 13 July, and here 13 August.

A talk page discussion (User talk:Electricmaster#Removing template from Oliver Hayes-Brown) which I started on 12 May has had little effect – it keeps happening and I'm over it. I flagged with the The-Pope in July that I was consider taking this to ANI.

I'm hoping ANI can assist with either putting a halt on this bot or throwing the hammer down to stop this constant automative template removal. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking more at Electricmaster's talk page, their bot concerns actually led to a block. Another user posted yesterday about a faulty edit. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll explain what's happening: There were a couple of subscripts that were previously fixed because of my healer script. Because I was forced to shut down the bot a few weeks ago, this led to a couple of cascading failures. In other words, you now see why the original bot is so important to have up and running again, as it was fast, self-healing, and impeccably accurate. Not having a fully automatic bot has led to these errors, which you will note were not present in the final update before I was made to terminate the main bot. I am currently patching the interdependency issue, but I hope the admins understand that I am not trying to be disruptive, nor am I trying (or wanting) to flout the rules. The best outcome is to have my bot tested through official channels ASAP so I can prevent any issues from happening. Electricmaster (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Until you get approval it is your responsibility to ensure you're not running any bots or doing any editing automated enough to require approval. This needs to happen ASAP. Approval is up to the BAG and you should expect no urgency just because you had to shut down an unapproved bot regardless of being unaware when you started for the need for approval. Also while technically checking what you wrote with an LLM before submitting isn't disallowed, if you are significantly revising your responses based on LLM feed back this is likely to violate WP:LLMTALK so needs to stop now if it hasn't already. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

And of course whether using an approved bot or manually editing, it's your responsibility to ensure your edits improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I was manually looking up the AFL Tables site for the recent edit and then applying the edits. I was doing the same thing @SuperJew was doing a couple weeks ago when the bot went down. Was he doing bot edits, too? What a considerable waste of time and effort this venture proved to be for trying to do something that was years overdue. This was going to be an extremely useful thing for the community, and now it's effectively dead in the water because of red tape. Electricmaster (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, your bot caused numerous issues. The red tape is there for a reason, and it's to prevent this from happening in the first place. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

There were two very minor issues that were fixed almost immediately. I'll also have you note they were errors that had ironically previously patched by the disabled bot (as I previously stated). Have a look at the final week the bot was running prior to my cessation. There wasn't a single error in that entire round (and likely wasn't for many rounds, and any issues (minor though they were) in previous rounds were immediately immediately flagged and then accounted for in the updated bot.

Additionally, the bot has previously found dozens of historical errors that had slipped by human editors. This is all documented, and I don't get any credit for that (not that I'm doing it for credit, but I'm meaning credit in the sense that the bot was a huge net gain for the AFL Wikipedians, who could then focus their attention on less tedious matters, and it was unanimously encourage by those in the AFL Wikipedia community.

People love to fixate on the 0.1% of problems while conveniently ignoring the 99.9% of issues the bot sought to address--and did so splendidly. Respectfully, out of all the arguments, this feels the weakest of them all. There now going to be a massive issue with synchronisation (about 700 weekly edits will now need to be done manually, and likely 90%+ will either not be done or be delayed, which functionally makes the AFL Wikipedia pages far worse off than it was); additionally, this will now be a huge opportunity cost to the other editors, who are going to have to sink countless hours updating things manually indefinitely.

One other thing you have to understand is that I was given no chance to roll back the bot in a gradual and sustainable way. They effectively threw a spanner in the works, meaning I wasn't able to wind back all the scripts in a responsible way. This whole debacle is a direct consequence of not giving a well-meaning editor the benefit of the doubt or the chance to put the pieces in place to comply in way that wouldn't lead to problems. Eighteen years editing on here, and this is the first major incident I have had against my name the whole time. Electricmaster (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Y

You were given a chance the first time, when you were told to seek approval. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

about 700 weekly edits will now need to be done manually I've seen this sort of thinking in airline pages as well, that Wikipedia needs to have up-to-date information. I don't think that's true; whether it takes a day, a month, or a year for a player's stats to update isn't the point of Wikipedia. MOS:RECENT seems to imply that Wikipedia prefers stable information, such as a PLAYER's stats {{asof|SOME DATE}} is preferred. I wonder if there's a guideline or policy that says this? EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is one thing that mildly concerns me about all this: Electricmaster appears from their comments here and elsewhere to regard their bot/bot-like tasking as somehow essential to Wikipedia. It isn't. Wikipedia got along just fine before this bot existed, and while it no doubt would be nice to have if it can be made to function right, Wikipedia will continue to get along just fine if it can't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I simply disagree. If a given set of pages for active players cannot be relied upon for accurate and timely information, then it ceases to be a useful resource and can, in fact, be a hindrance to reliability. Electricmaster (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

You can simply disagree, but WP:NOTNEWS is policy. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source for accurate and timely information. Verifiable, yes. Timely, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Since, despite being aware of this thread and their previous assurances to the contrary in response to a previous block, Electricmaster seems to have continued to use their account for unauthorised bot task, I have blocked them from articlespace indefinitely. Any admin should feel free to loosen or strengthen this block without consulting me first. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Electricmaster, I'll be blunt here. You have been repeatedly told, both in this thread and elsewhere (), that you may not operate bot tasks in mainspace without prior approval. You (or an LLM tasked by you) has made an explicit commitment to not make automated or semi-automated article edits through any account or IP unless BAG expressly authorizes them in response to JBW's block a few weeks ago. You have nonetheless continued to run this task. As I see it, there are two options here: Either you (or some LLM tasked by you) has been making assurances about intending to comply with the rules without intending to actually do so, or you have been trying to disable the automated tools that you are using, but you are not fully in control of them. Neither of these is okay. You have to stop using automation without approval, and you have to stop using LLMs to engage with your fellow editors. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  I note their response on their talk page, which I found disheartening. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Like I said, the problem is when you have multiple scripts designed to keep the function of an intended outcome stable get disabled (like I did per your request), doing edits without the bot may lead to unintended consequences. Now that I am permanently blocked and have everything shut down by force, there is likely going to be a lot of issues and possibly some complaints as hundreds of pages will fail to update unless done manually (which obviously I won't be doing using any method). I tried to take the correct path more than three weeks ago but was, frankly, treated quite rudely.

  None of this was even a problem until I made the mistake of trying to do things by the book. What kind of lesson is that setting for well-meaning Wikipedians? Electricmaster (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  No one told you to use The community as a whole never told you to use multiple unapproved scripts, and there's no book which tells you to do so. In fact, it's not clear to me that any of your scripts are allowed under the "book" since it doesn't seem any of them have approval and it sounds like they are semi-automated enough to require it. (Otherwise they wouldn't be making errors which you didn't notice.) Either way, if your scripts are so co-dependent that stopping one down will break them all, then you need to shut them all down whenever there is need to shut one down whether because you are required to by the community or because one is buggy or for any other reason. As the person who's not only running these scripts but developed them, it's your responsibility and no one else's to know this will happen and act accordingly. I've never worked with the BAG but I have strong doubts they will approve your use of any scripts or bot when you are incapable of dealing with this and instead want to rush approval and blame others for the problems caused by your scripts and you're lack of knowledge of what they will do when you make changes or failure to stop it if you did know. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC) 19:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  As mentioned earlier, having updated information isn't as big of a priority for Wikipedia as much as having Verifiable and stable information is. Also, "indefinite" is not the same as "permanent" as blocks are preventative, not punitive. An indef can last any amount of time until the user makes a convincing unblock appeal and an admin reads it and unblocks them. Don't get discouraged! BrandNewSaint (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Electricmaster, I don't doubt that you mean well, and I did not block you to impart some sort of lesson; I blocked to mitigate an ongoing issue. The bot policy states that All bots that make any logged actions (such as editing pages, uploading files or creating accounts) must be approved for each of these tasks before they may operate. [emphasis in original]. This applies irrespective of whether a bot task runs under a separate account or under your own (although bot edits should be made with dedicated accounts). This rule exists to ensure that bots – which by design can create a much greater volume of contributions than humans – operate correctly and with the requisite community consensus. The block is indefinitely in place to enforce that rule, but it is not meant to be infinite. Once we find a way forward that ensures that no unapproved bot edits will be made in the future, I (or another admin) will be glad to lift it. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ideally what I would like to do is go back to the working bot and (this isn't even a compromise in my mind) have the proposed changes be put up as a draft for a second-party human reviewer to check and approve each proposed edit. In other words, nothing gets pushed as a live edit at all without external oversight.

  You know how some pages that are protected require approval before the page goes live? What I would actually like is a self-imposed restriction to do that automatically (and can be applied blanket-wide on the mainspace). This has a twofold effect: it ensures nothing I or any bot changes will get published unless a new user approves it, and it makes certain I can't do anything accidentally deleterious even if I wanted to; plus it will put your mind at ease that all precautions are taken. Is this a possible mechanic in Wikipedia? I could see this being a silver bullet to avoid all the drama and ensure you're confident there's always a trusted human in the loop. It also means, I am not at the mercy of having the bot trial approved to ensure statistics can be relied on for accuracy. If not, I'm open to other ideas. If none of this is tenable, then I'm more than happy to freeze the bot entirely as well as all other subscripts (which I've now triple-checked has already been done) until such a time that the bot trial commences. Obviously this isn't ideal, but there you go.

  Happy for you to keep eyes on this to ensure everything goes properly, as obviously I also want things to go smoothly as well. I'm also open to any other alternative ideas, as I'm willing to make any concessions you deem prudent and that would satisfy that all precautions are adequately applied. Electricmaster (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response, Electricmaster. There is, I'm afraid, no way of applying a pending changes-style mechanism to individual accounts (as opposed to individual pages).

  People more well-versed in the topic area (and/or in automation matters) are likely to have more specific ideas on what such a solution might ideally look like, but if there is a wikiproject (or similar group of editors) interested in acting as the "humans in the loop", one thing you might consider is to use a userspace bot or similar to create lists of pages that may need updates (and potential sources etc.), so that people can work through these and manually implement the edits? --Blablubbs (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well, I give up. It’s clear this has become a vindictive bureaucratic crusade rather than a legitimate attempt for solving a legitimate issue. Electricmaster (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  All I can do is to pledge not to edit any of the AFL-related pages. If that is not a good enough commitment, I don’t know what else to say. I’m not going to beg to get back a volunteer position. Electricmaster (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you're complicating things so much. The only thing you need to do is stop using your scripts without approval. If your scripts are simple enough that they don't need approval, it shouldn't be that have to describe to the BAG what they do and receive confirmation they don't need approval. Perhaps a topic ban will convince an admin if it's where you've been making problems but ultimately we don't care what pages you're editing with your scripts. Since we already trusted you saying you'd stop once, it's going to be a little harder to convince us (or maybe just one admin) that you'll truly stop now. However the biggest barrier IMO to you being unblocked is not even that. it's that on both your talk page and here you've taken limited ownership of your mistakes instead doing a lot of blaming others (WP:NOTTHEM) and WP:wikilawyering. It's hard to convince anyone you're going to truly reform when you're mostly saying you didn't really do much wrong. Begging doesn't come in to it, just understanding and accepting where you went wrong and how you need to improve going forward. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  As Nil says, it's really simple. Do you agree to not run any automated or semiautomated scripts until they are either approved by the BAG or given a 'these are simple enough we don't need to approve them' thumbs-up, with the provision that if there are any automated or semi-automated scripts run without that happening you'll be fully and indefinitely blocked? An answer of "yes, I do" gets your pblock lifted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• As Electricmaster has accepted the terms stated in my message just above, I have lifted their pblock. Naturally, many eyes will be on them and I trust that any recurrance will be immediately spotted and acted upon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Repeated use of LLM among a number of other issues

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

User has a lengthy history of creating pages using LLM. Despite multiple warnings on their talk page, they have thus far refused to respond to any messages for over 8 months, including this specific message about the need to WP:ENGAGE. Most recently, they created Miranda Goeltom which I attempted to draftify due to multiple issues, including LLM usage. They chose once again not to engage but to simply move the draft back to the article namespace minutes later. Ultimately BusterD deleted the page under WP:G10 & WP:G15. There are numerous other examples that I cannot easily list here due to the contributions being deleted.

Interestingly enough the ONLY message they responded to on their talk page was in this post where they claimed ownership of an article with this bizare rant:

Thanks for paying attention, but the Victor Tinambunan article was actually written by me, i appreciate the interest of course, but it’s a bit amusing when someone with a 14 year old account steps in and acts like they’ve been part of the whole process from the start. Having an old account doesn’t automatically make someone involved in every article, and it certainly doesn’t change who actually put in the work. Still, it’s nice to see that you noticed the page, even if the enthusiasm came with a level of familiarity that didn’t quite match the Contribution… well, to set things straight, everything in the Victor Tinambunan article comes from my own effort. The research, the writing, the formatting all of it is my work. I don’t mind people taking an interest, but trying to slide into the picture as if you had even the slightest involvement is a bit strange, especially when the history clearly says otherwise. An account being 14 years old doesn’t magically turn someone into a contributor, and it definitely doesn’t grant a free pass to act like part of the team. So yes, the contribution is mine, and pretending otherwise won’t change a single line of it.

At this point, I request a block from the article namespace until Zekeon makes addresses the numerous concerns that have been raised on their talk page and commits to stop creating pages using LLM. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:52, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from mainspace and draftspcae until they communciate. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I looked at their most recent article (draftified by Zackmann) now at Draft:Destry Damayanti. While there appear to be 6 sources there are only 4 due to duplicates, and 2/4 are 404. They are all given access dates in 2019. Everything dated after 2019 in the article is simply unsourced. It could be an unacknowledged translation with no post-checking and with LLM material used to fill in more recent events. M kuhner (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

their first creation had a wide array of red-linked cats and templates, but it appears to have been a translation from Indonesian Wikipedia Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It was an unacknowledged translation of https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destry_Damayanti. Fences&Windows 08:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't speak Indonesian, but this appears to translate peneliti di as "researcher" in some cases but "research assistant" in another. It duplicates two references for no clear reason, and adds material later than 2019 with no sourcing at all. The "Other activities" section strikes me as pure LLM: it asserts that she does several things but mentions only one, which is a common LLM error. M kuhner (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Editors repeatedly disrupting an RfC

RememberOrwell and Just10A are repeatedly removing an option from an RfC that has been running admirably congenially until today. First removal with bad faith edsum by RemeberOrwell here , and then again here . Edit of it by Just10A here , and removal here . For context, their objection is that I added it as option 4, which I did 9 days ago with no objections. I had explicit permission from the nominator of the RfC to do so which RememberOrwell may not have noticed, but that Just10A says they are aware of . As per my explanation to them on that talk page, the option was added because another commenter, Otr500 had noted the absence. The RFC was still new, so it made sense to add it per the explicit permission to me to do so. I left a comment to say I had done so. That was 9 days ago. Today we have had this tag teaming removal that Maddy from Celeste has also noted is clearly disruptive. At this time the RfC has option 4 deleted and memory holed, which is disruptive of the whole process. It is also the case that these two are, in effect, deleting my talk page comments. Could we get an administrator over there please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

These edit summaries might be of interest too...

• Special:Diff/1369372719 Edit was somewhere between sealioning and vandalism.
• Special:Diff/1369383248 Not what I did. Don't add an option to an active RfC that pushes your PoV or revert its removal.

So adding an option to an RfC is now sealioning, vandalism and POV pushing? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:53, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I think this is being made significantly more antagonistic that it needs to be and is a little odd. I can't speak for Sirfur v.Orwell, but my only involvement in this is that when they started fighting, I pointed out that it probably wasn't best practice for Sirfur to edit another editor's comment with no immediate way of knowing he did it and in a way that it was above their signature line and made it appear like it was from their mouth. (The editor is @LampoonLarry, I don't know why Sirfur wouldn't tag him). I pointed out that I didn't agree with him that a off-hand remark gave them an open license to edit away any comments they wanted and that it was an expansive interpretation of the editor's words in my opinion (no where near "explicit permission from the nominator", but I do not want to speak for that editor, and it could be a reasonable difference in interpretation.)

Regardless, I believe we reached an easy fix to just add that the option was an addendum added amicably by the parties so it isn't confused with Larry's signature content. . I genuinely believed this was amicably sorted. He then got angry and edit-warred it back in (I believe he's at WP:3RR now). On that basis, I removed the whole line based on a plain reading of WP:TPO, as there had now been 2 objections to his editing of another's comments, and it's best to err on the side of caution. I have no idea why he had a problem with "addendum" and insisted on his words being above Larry's signature with no signal that they weren't what he wrote. Regardless, I have no problem with Maddy's solution of removing the signature line(s) altogether, and think that equally solves the issue. I frankly think that this more between the other editor(s) or is just a blowup. Just10A (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to add options to RfCs in good faith. Many RfCs are just timestamped, not signed. Your behavior is disruptive (as is RememberOrwell's). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:43, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, well this RFC wasn’t just time stamped. It was signed, and he was editing above his signature. There’s no “as long as he’s in GF” exception to WP:TPO. Further, I don’t think it’s even possible to be edit warring something in good faith. Just10A (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

You were tag team edit warring out my agreed and talk page noted talk page comment, so as to remove an option from an ongoing RfC. There is no wiki-lawyering that. WP:TPO applies to you too! You knew what you were doing. You knew the RfC nom. had specifically given me permission to do so. You knew that the addition had stood for 9 days. You knew it's a designated contentious topic. If you thought there was some conduct issue, you should have raised that yourself. You did raise it on the talk page and two editors told you that the removal was clearly disruptive, so you chose to tag team the removal. I did you a favour here. Because all I'm interested in is getting the RfC on track, I raised it here. If I were going after you, I'd have raised this at WP:AE. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

You keep saying I was aware he had “specifically given [you] permission to do so” even though I have explained multiple times I don’t agree with you on that. Stop misrepresenting me please. Nor am I breaking WP:TPO by following it.

I’m going to reiterate that I have no problem with how the page is now. This is literally a moot argument and pure drama board bs. So no, you’re not doing anyone any favors, you created drama because you lashed out because you hit WP:3RR and flew here immediately instead of waiting for a normal, amicable community solution that was reached before you even finished writing this. and now you’re continuing to litigate it because (?). Again, I can’t speak for Sirfur fighting with Orwell, but as far as I’m concerned I have 0 issue with the compromise we’ve already reached on the page, so I’m going to retire from this. Just10A (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

No you are not following WP:TPO. That is quite clear: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is not to edit or remove others' posts without their permission. Now look at the exceptions. I had already drawn your attention to the nom. saying very clearly and amicably to me, I have made an RfC, I hope you feel I represented your argument fairly. Obvs feel free to expand. Thus I can and did claim the exemption:

With their permission, such as ... an invitation to modify their comment.

If you thought I misunderstood that, the nom. was active on the talk, and could have answered questions. It had also been explained to you that this is a common practice. But no, you took it upon yourself to remove my talk page entry again - one of the active options in an RfC - even though another editor had also pointed out to you that would be disruptive, and even though no TPO exemption allows you to do that. 3RR has nothing to do with it. We are here because you became the second editor that day to disruptively remove an option from an active RfC. And although I see Maddy from Celetse did revert you a minute before I posted this, according to the time stamp, that was effectively the same time, because as I said I would on your talk page, I checked to see if the option was back just before hitting post. It wasn't, so I posted. I don't want to be here, but your disruptive editing of an RfC is why we are here, and no other reason. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, is there any possible interpretation of Obvs feel free to expand that does not mean "modify my comment directly"? I am convinced that you believe it was such an invitation, but is there also a reasonable interpretation that it could have meant, "Tell me more so I can represent your idea better" or "I don't object yo you proposing the new option in the discussion section"? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Nobody is prohibited from adding an option to an RfC and reverting that addition based on TPO is wrong and disruptive. Source: I've participated in and closed a lot of RfCs. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I certainly interpreted it as the latter, Redneck. Voorts, if it is the case based on your experience that permission doesn’t matter for RFCs then shouldn’t we endeavor to write that in the WP:TPO or WP:RFC then? Just10A (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

No. If you and RememberOrwell had just used common sense instead of being combative over a nothingburger, we wouldn't be here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

The only reason I even replied was in effort to improve policy to reflect the tribal knowledge you say exists (though, apparently also recognize is not supported by the text of WP:RFC). Ironically, the people who are “being combative over a nothingburger” are the ones continuing to litigate and moan over a moot argument that’s already been amicably solved on the page for nearly a day now. That culprit can be found in your nearest mirror big dog. Just10A (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

If you're trying to de-escalate a discussion of user behaviour, calling said discussion litigat[ing] and moan[ing] is certainly one approach you could take. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The editor who started the RFC doesn't get to own it, otherwise they would gains massive first move advantage. Adding Other options is a normal part of a RFC, the issue was that LampoonLarry's commentary should never have been part of the RFC question (per WP:RFCBRIEF). Making the options part of that commentary was the mistake, not adding other options. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Either way, it's common practice, as far more experienced editors have told you. No single editor owns an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:57, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Well. I haven't seen this username for just over a year now, so I'd like to say that I'm surprised at this and that I had assumed the editor's approach had improved, but honestly the battleground behaviour is less unexpected than it really should be. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:44, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Ngl RememberOrwell's !vote that Restore Britain's inquiry qualifies as a major non-statutory independent inquiry is absurdist POV pushing, sure it's a emotive topic but come on Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I dont usually get too involved in contentious topics but I received a bot invitation. I felt the RFC was more fair with the added option, so I stated as much, and I also feel that there has been no objections. Common practice has been adding options and objection can be dealt with at the time. In fairness someone could ping the initiator, if it were important, for clarification. With the long time frame between the addition and the "other stuff", I feel there was also an agreement to add it. Certainly, I did not object, as I thought the option should be there. To me, it was common senseand without the option it seemed like a stacked RFC. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

~2026-34651-68: Hound behavior and disruptive editing

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

---

• ~2026-34651-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Uwe Boll

User:~2026-34651-68 and I had a dispute over whether the Uwe Boll article should say if he moved to North America or Canada during the 2000s. I decided a fair compromise would be to say he began making English language films by the 2000s. The fact most of his films have been in English, despite being from Germany, is the most important information - in fact an earlier edit said Boll "moved to German-produced English language films in the 2000s". Saying he simply moved to Canada doesn't establish he was making English language films - in fact, he's since returned to Germany, but is still making films in English.

Four days after I made my edit with no contention, 2026-34651-68 reverts me and tells me to "deal with it". They then edit article again to say Boll "transitioned to English-language films", the same thing I wrote before their reversion. This begs the question over why they reverted me when they were going to same thing as me. Now they're going back to simply saying Boll moved to Canada and reverting me without explanation.

I have to question if 2026-34651-68 is acting in good faith or if they are deliberately targeting me. If they truly believed the article should say Boll moved to Canada instead of saying Boll transitioned to English language films, they wouldn't have restored what I wrote after reverting me. Bluerules (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

This user is constantly removing "Canada" from the article Uwe Boll against multiple users including an admin 1, 2

I also don't recall ever interacting with you outside of this article so I don't know what this "hounding" talk is about. ~2026-34651-68 (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

You also removed Canada from the lead after reverting me.

Multiple users, including yourself, have said "English language films" instead of Canada.

The admin had a problem with saying "North America" instead of "Canada". The admin never expressed an issue with "English language films", which you also wrote.

To "repeatedly confront or inhibit [an editor's] work" constitutes WP:HOUND, which is what you're doing by repeatedly reverting my edits without rationale.

You removed your notice from your talk page, which further demonstrates you don't want to work towards a resolution. Bluerules (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Bluerules, this is a content dispute, and this noticeboard simply does not deal with content disputes. The first step that parties involved in a content dispute should take is to discuss the matter on the article talk page. Talk: Uwe Boll goes back 20 years and yet no one has commented there since 2022. Please discuss the matter on that talk page with the goal of creating consensus. As for some administrator expressing an opinion about the content, us adminstrators have no more authority than any other editor when it comes to content. "An adminstrator agrees with me about the content dispute" is an invalid argument. Editors are allowed to remove things from their talk pages. That indicates that they have read the item. Cullen328 (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

If ~2026-34651-68 had simply reverted me, I would agree this was simply a content dispute.

But as I mentioned, after reverting me (and telling me to "deal with it"), they then undid their own reversion and restored what I wrote.

If they feel so strongly about "Canada" being in the lead of the article, why did they remove it themselves? Why did they revert me only to put back what I wrote? That's why it feels disruptive and not in good faith. Bluerules (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Then the way to make it very clear to everyone else is to start a discussion on the talk page, and if they haven't talked it out and kept reverting, you can add unambiguous WP:STONEWALLing to the report. And if they do discuss, you can ask them yourself about those edits. Maybe they changed their mind, maybe the first revert was a mistake, etc. WP:AGF still applies. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't. I re-inserted your "English-language" addition without removing Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uwe_Boll&diff=next&oldid=1369492341 ~2026-34651-68 (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Then what was the point of reverting me? Bluerules (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

To restore that he moved to Canada. 2 people want this in the article. You don't own this page ~2026-34651-68 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove notifications from their talk page. It just means they have read it.

Also, regarding this diff of the TA reverting, admins have no special authority over content. An "admin version" has no inherent draw over a non-admin one.

Finally, I don't notice any recent activity on the talk page. (edit conflict) As I just saw Cullen referenced. Try talking it out there. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Concerns about User:Tin2012

Tin2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure how to organize this post, so it's probably going to be all over the place--I apologize for that.

At first, this user's editing pattern concerned me, with sometimes more than 10 edits in a row and no edit summary. For instance:

• Censorship of Roblox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (where I reverted their edits for being unsourced)

I was more worried when I read their userpage, which I did my best to understand, and it sounded like they are using Google Translate to translate pages into languages they don't actually speak themselves.

I did try discussing it with the user (User talk:Tin2012#Google Translate, ChatGPT, and minor edits), but all I got was an "okay, I agree this message" with no acknowledgement of what I said, and the behavior continued: 10+ edits, no edit summary.

In preperation for this ANI thread, I looked at their talk page history, and read their talk page before it was blanked. . "I also know to try to help me for edit that page, this is made first edit, I use Google Translate to do that" and "help me fix this please i translate by Create/Edit the page", though the comment "i want to translate it and copy these vietnamese wikipedia page doesn't have language so you can help me fix that if you want" makes me not sure whether they're translating into Vietnamese or into English. (edit 18:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC): rereading the quote again, it seems to mean they're translating a Vietnamese article into English)

They have created several articles as well , 13 of them are currently live. Again, my concern is that they are using Google Translate or AI tools and don't actually understand the language.

Anyways, I discovered they have been warned in the past, even when asked to acknowledge talk page communication as well as notified about the Edit summary feature before [.

Picking one of their random edits, adds a table in Vietnamese then many small edits were made to fix the table.

I forgot about this user, but was reminded of them again when I saw this edit, changing the language of a channel with no reliable source.

Sorry if this is nitpicking, but there are also edits like this where I'm not sure what they're doing.

Given the past history of no communication and editing that is not necessarily constructive, I feel that administrative intervention is warranted. ~ rusty ^meow ~ 15:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

These contributions look to be in the realm of good faith, hampered by an obvious language barrier. I'm not seeing any urgent intractable behaviours warranting administrative action here (these are content issues, not conduct). As far as I'm aware, LLM assistance is permitted for article translations from other projects. "?utm_source=chatgpt.com" is a non-issue, as ChatGPT adds this to URLs it sources. This can be rectified in an article by removing that part of the address. This editor would probably be better suited for another Wikipedia project in their first language, but beyond that I'm not sure this is actionable. Give advice and post notices where applicable in my opinion. 11WB 💬 20:17, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

These contributions look to be in the realm of good faith, hampered by an obvious language barrier. [...] As far as I'm aware, LLM assistance is permitted for article translations from other projects.

If there's an "obvious language barrier" then LLM translation is not allowed, per WP:LLMTRANSLATE: "When translating text from a non-English Wikipedia into the English Wikipedia mainspace, you may only use these tools when: You are skilled enough in both the origin language and English to confirm the translation is accurate [...]" Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

There isn't a complete inability to speak English, which is why I said "language barrier". Regardless, I've left an invitation on their talk page to the Vietnamese Wikipedia project. I believe this is an appropriate response. Thanks. 11WB 💬 22:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Gnomingstuff here. It may not be a complete inability to speak English, but it looks to me like a high enough barrier to not fulfill the requirement here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

We have had problems for years with editors with poor English language skills. On the one hand, some are self aware, cautious and quick learners. They do OK. Others are over confident and unable to fully recognize their problems with English. They can create really bad content without realizing it, and can get indignant when called out. When you add incompetent use of AI tools into the mix, the problems get vastly worse. I use translation tools all the time to get a quick preliminary sense of what someone is writing in languages I do not speak. But I would never try to write content for this encyclopedia that way, and do not think that anyone else should be permitted to do so. I think that most in the editing community share my concerns. Moderately fluent English language skills are necessary to write acceptable content on the English language Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I've never quite understood the impulse personally; my German is good enough to get around a German city if people there refused to speak English with me, but trying to write an encyclopedia article in German sounds like an absolute nightmare of a headache that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. "Do this task that you will struggle at for no useful purpose and that absolutely nobody would appreciate," isn't exactly what one puts on the pamphlet. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

CoffeeCrumbs, I think the perception that these people share is that the English language Wikipedia is the "boss Wikipedia" or the "top dog Wikipedia" or the only Wikipedia that matters. This is of course false. They also think, probably correctly, that English is the lingua franca of the 21st century and that English proficiency is an important part of their personal path to success. Cullen328 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

This shows that it is of course true, if taken in a broad sense, especially adding your second point to it. ~2026-44899-60 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

"Ours is the only Wikipedia of consequence." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Disruption on James Tour, and User:Historyexpert2 is WP:NOTHERE

• James Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Historyexpert2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

James Tour

On JT's BLP page, the following strikethrough text has been EWarringly removed 6 times: d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6

In a December 2025 interview with Tucker Carlson, Tour rejected evolution. The claims and arguments made by Tour were debunked in a 2026 article by biologist Peter Uetz in the journal Free Inquiry.

And in d6, the edit summary given by Historyexpert2: (contribs) (talk)

As per WP:BLPREVERT, do not revert again, you should open a talk page thread.

While the sentence has indeed not been talk-page discussed, nor it gained consensus, I think that claiming to have rejected / disproven the evolution theory is WP:SKYBLUE-levels of wrong / unscientific, and that when such a claim was made, Wikipedia should point out its wrongfulness. NPOV is not no-pov, and Wikipedia's POV is that of science.

And it's a little bit perplexing how suddenly 4 different IP editors (counting IP, though), came along to hammer the same sentence, on an article that seemingly has seen some COI editing.* I don't know if this is SPI material, off-wiki canvassing, or real organic edit warring.

A steelman argument for "it did have consensus"

The sentence has been defended once, in edit summary, when the sentence was reinstated after its removal in diff d2.
And it has some consensus, because that 3 independant editors reinstated it: Cdjp1 r.d3, Ancient Greek Scribe r.d4, and me r.d5.

Historyexpert 2

I am also concerned with Historyexpert2's behaviour on this site. HE2's edits seems to almost exclusively focused on CTOPs, having nominated right to sexuality for deletion, got noted for this, received CTOP alerts multiple times here and here. In the latter link, Lijil raised concerns (and asked for explanations) to HE2's use of misleading edit summaries and problematic CTOP edits, and HE2 removed the thread completely without giving a reply or edit summary.

It seems like HE2 is mainly here to do WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff and is unwilling to accept (or even respond to) suggestions / concerns raised by other editors, to the point of getting the comment I am struggling to come up with a good faith scenario for why you would do this - is there one? from Lijil.

Given these patterns, I don't think HE2 is demonstrating a willingness to contribute collaboratively.

iris 1:35a (+8). 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 17:35, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

And it has some consensus, because that 3 independant editors reinstated it

That is not how consensus works, here are two wikipedia policies talking about this:

• WP:ONUS (as a general case)
• WP:BLPREVERT (for biography of living persons articles like this one)

If you disagree with editors, it goes a longer way to use talk pages rather than making conduct threads.

Historyexpert2 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

You missed the point. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 18:23, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

BLPREVERT is a tricky thing to rely on, just because you think it's a BLP issue doesn't give you the right to edit war over it. If many other editors think it's not a BLP issue the best idea is to take it to WP:BLPN rather than edit war over it. As to ONUS, the first type of consensus is through editing. So if multiple editors revert you then there is a consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

the best idea is to take it to WP:BLPN rather than edit war over it

Exactly :P Historyexpert2 (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you taken the issue up there instead of continuing to remove the material? As mentioned, repeated reversions by numerous independent editors is implicit consensus, if not explicit. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat, I am not sure I understand here, that specific revision was restored by exactly one person, who then took this content dispute directly to ANI instead of following BRD and opening up a talk page section.

On the talk page itself, Talk:James Tour#Let's_pause, there is a consensus against that revision, and the impolite manner in which irisChronomia behaves in contentious topics, like deleting others discussion posts , or using the slang "noted" towards other Wikipedians .

Historyexpert2 (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

"Noted" is synonymous with "acknowledged". There is nothing impolite about that. And your link for that is just to the OP here. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Per IC's collapsed section above, the removal was reverted at least three different times by three different editors. As they've noted, the edit history is a disaster, and everyone involved - including you - should have started a talk page section sooner instead of just arguing through edit summaries. They're the one who finally did, and I don't see anything resembling a consensus there at this point. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Your response really confuses the edit history, you also seem to be related in some way to this individual. . Historyexpert2 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

That is absolutely not what that means. I suggest you refresh your knowledge of English colloquialisms. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

you also seem to be related in some way to this individual.

How insightful; what a profound discovery. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 04:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Tag? Team! ~2026-44935-43 (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems like HE2's response to concerns is to evade the questions. So HE2:

• You used misleading edit summaries, why?
• All your edits focus on CTOPs, and many resemble battlegrounding, why?
• Do you want to edit anything outside CTOPs?

海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 05:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Well this ties back to the original point. The first step is making a talk page thread, not a conduct thread when you have a disagreement about a topic.

You can prove CTOP participation, stale disagreements - magnitudes more egregious than mine - of about just anyone in this conversation. Historyexpert2 (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Um, so you're response is "others are worse than me"?

Again: you're focusing exclusively on CTOPs and often making disruptively big decisions. Many raised the concern about you.

WP:OTHERS is kind of evasive here. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 14:19, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

the first part is, i think, on the face of it, a reasonable argument to keep the sentence (albeit that i havent read the sources). You should be making it on the talk page rather than escalating it straight to here. Morwen (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It was raised on the talk page before the current reference was even published. See Talk:James Tour#Tucker Carlson interview and User talk:Peteruetz#Introduction to contentious topics, a Wikipedia editor with an axe to grind wrote an article for the express purpose of discrediting Tour. FDW777 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Calling Tour a creationist superstar is not defamatory, since it's true. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

It may or may not be true. Is it verifiable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

That's an opinion. It's not necessarily true. The burden of proof is those that want to include the sentence and I don't think writing an opinion article for the express purpose of including in wikipedia is consistent with neutral point of view. PerseusMeredith (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I have formally warned Peteruetz under CTOP/BLP to not cite his own work or write articles intended to be cited in relation to living people. Fences&Windows 15:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I have also been concerned about Historyexpert2's focus on CTOP and his tendency to make big decisions (like blanking and redirecting or removing content) without discussions and with edit summaries that reference a policy that doesn't really apply. I and others have raised these issues on his talk page, which he regularly blanks, so check his talk page history to see specific examples from me and other editors. He also makes some constructive edits. Several months ago I considered requesting a topic block for gender and sexuality, but he eased up after receiving feedback from me and others. I haven't been active in the last months so don't know what happened since and can't speak to the current case. Lijil (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

HE2, this is a conduct concern. You're dragged here because you used misleading edit summaries and made disruptively big decisions on contentious topics to the point of WP:SPA, and kept evading questions when concerns were raised, including in here. edited 10:45 UTC. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 04:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Jake11234296

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

---

User:Jake11234296 has been editing at a pace which instantly suggests AI use; for example, they created two 5,000-byte articles in the same minute... twice. Their creations are especially suspect since many are in WP:GS/MJ, and several have been deleted as well under WP:CT/AI. Many clear signs of AI use are present, for example fundamentally marked the exact historical pivot on this page, and a history of repeatedly tripping the edit filter with AI citation tags. Their AF logs are so heavy that they got automatically reported to AIV, and several of their edits are tagged with paste checks. In addition to all that, they were also given a level-4 warning for unsourced additions, and did not respond to the warning user.

When asked by @Asukite: on their talk page, they responded with a vague, generic denial that shows English proficiency far below that of their articles. Given how far this has gone, I would expect and indef unless Jake11234296 expressly agrees to avoid editing with LLMs and in contentious areas. At this point, saying "I didn't use AI" is either trolling, incompetency, or an indication that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 23:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

There's not even a question about how obvious the LLM use is. They're dumping garbage articles on controversial topics right into the encyclopedia, so I think a block from articlespace is necessary while they discuss the issue here. Then they can decide if they're going to change their approach in order to be compatible with this project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

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

User:DylanMReed — possible retaliatory AfD nominations

I am requesting administrative attention regarding User:DylanMReed's recent AfD nominations. I am concerned that the pattern may constitute WP:REVENGE or otherwise be retaliatory. I recently assessed an article as part of a WikiProject. The user subsequently viewed my editing history, and approximately 50 minutes later nominated the same article for deletion. The timing raises a concern about possible retaliation, although I am not asserting the user's motive as fact. I also note the user's nominations of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Gopal Kothari, Argyrios Papathanasopoulos, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjali Saraogi. I would appreciate someone reviewing the relevant interactions and nomination history to determine whether there is a broader pattern of inappropriate or retaliatory nominations. I am not asking administrators to take action based solely on my suspicion. I am asking for someone to review the circumstances and, if appropriate, remind the user to keep AfD nominations focused on the articles' merits and not use the process in response to disagreements with other editors. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 10:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion at User talk:ToBeFree#How?? is probably important background on DHIRAJDHONA. I think it might be best if they were kept away from AFD and reviewing drafts at present. FDW777 (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

First of all this dicuss is seprate metter and i did not ask for your suggestion on whether I should be kept away from AfD or draft reviewing. I filed a report regarding the AfD nomination and asked for appropriate action on that matter. Please keep the discussion focused on the report I raised. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 11:17, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

That's not how ANI works. If you bring an issue you should expect the behaviour of all participants including your own to come under scrutiny. WP:Boomerangs are very common and an editor insisting we can't scrutinise their behaviour makes it more likely. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Please review the edit history first. Earlier that morning, I moved one of this user's non-notable articles to draft, and the user responded with what I considered a threatening remark. Shortly afterward, they nominated my article for deletion. Given the timing and sequence of events, I believe there is a strong possibility that the AfD nomination was retaliatory. I cannot establish their motive with certainty, but the circumstances clearly warrant scrutiny under WP:REVENGE. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 11:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You are arguing that the AFD nomination of Argyrios Papathanasopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is in some way incorrect. You are very wrong. If anything, that article demonstrates that you should not be permitted to create articles in mainspace at this time. FDW777 (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh God, instead of helping me, everyone is turning against me as if I have committed some crime simply by filing a report. For your information, I have seen cases before where someone nominated an article out of revenge, and the community immediately recognized the issue as retaliatory; members focused on the revenge aspect and voted to strongly keep the article. But here, everything seems completely backwards. I filed a very neutral report, yet somehow I am the one being blamed and scrutinized. Honestly, it makes me question whether my time is worth spending on Wikipedia. And @Jimbo Wales sorry sir I am literally frustrated with Wikipedia's system and the useless knowledge of these people. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 12:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You are making the assumption that DylanMReed is the problem, and that the solution should involve him. In contrast, I believe your editing history to date shows that in fact you are the problem. FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Two things can be true at the same time: the AfD nomination can be revenge, but the articles might've been AfDed by someone else anyways.

It is important to note that people aren't hostile to you, even though it can feel like they're "turning against" you: sometimes editors' time turn into waste, and it happens very often for new editors as they are getting used to the Wikipedia way of things. It happens often to seasoned editors, also, but they know it's just the Wikipedia way of things and got used to it.

My suggestion is that it'll work better for all of us if we make assumptions about intentions after we looked at the arguments.

And that, even if an article is deleted, you can still have a copy of your work on your user page stored as draft. You can also request undeletion if and when the subject eventually unambiguously met the notability guideline.

It is important to consider that Wikipedia articles are, damn it, Wikipedia articles, and many users across the web take our word for granted, treating it as objective descriptions of the reality. What we write also strongly impact the content of search engine's "AI-generated overview".

And such popularity and trust brings responsibility. It is on the editors to ensure that Wikipedia don't make mistakes, don't lend undue credibility to people, don't say something to be true when such claim's truthfulness isn't unambiguous.

And that's what AfC / AfD / all the scrutiny is for: because this is an encyclopedia that real people actually reads and rely on.

tl;dr: to become a seasoned editor, one has to practice a lot and throw away many, many, many pages of text in the process. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 12:34, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

What?? Two things can be true at the same time: the AfD nomination can be revenge, but the articles might've been AfDed by someone else anyways @IrisChronomia Sorry to disturb your discussion. I think you should acknowledge that a retaliatory AfD is never appropriate. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandar Soundarrajan (3rd nomination). Unless there is a valid basis for the nomination, it should not be treated as a legitimate AfD. I totally argee with @DHIRAJDHONA WP:REVENGE A retaliatory AfD is not appropriate here Eleena Vitha (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You should definitely not use a new account just to agree with yourself, DHIRAJDHONA. We know it's you. Sockpuppetery substantially hurts one's standing - please don't dig your situation into an even deeper hole. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

For your information, this ~2026-36029-21 was mine & I have used TAs many times before. When I saw the discussion about retaliatory AfD nominations i became aware of the issue and thought I should start by editing first. Whether you believe me or not is entirely your call. Eleena Vitha (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

A temp focused on AN/I? That's normal. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 15:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

User:DHIRAJDHONA, I have tried to google Αργύρης Παπαθανασόπουλος instead of Argyrios Papathanasopoulos, and it does appear that the doctor/sportsman regularly appears in what look like normal news channels (through the years). I have very limited experience with Greek media channels and websites though, so I cannot provide direct help. My suggestion is that if you want to keep this article, you should at least add a broader range of sources to the article and present the materials to the people who are discussing in the AfD instead of trying to prove that User:DylanMReed has bad intentions in this case (I will not comment on the others). Many subjects deserve a Wikipedia article but if the creator/main editor of the article does not provide enough good sources and reasoning, it is (unfortunately) expected that the article might not pass the AfD. Deamonpen (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Uh, no. Per AN/I guidelines, the discussion can be centered around all the parties, including commentators. You might want to read WP:BOOMERANG.

Also, all editors are qualified to participate in the discussion. When a veteran editor that has certainly seen a lot about Wikipedia come to provide advice, replying with i did not ask for your suggestion [...] is not the best of response. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 11:26, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

what are you alleging that it is retaliatory for? did you have some sort of negative interaction prior to this? Morwen (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is User:DHIRAJDHONA (276 edits) in a dispute with User:DylanMReed (614 edits) involving matters which quite frankly nobody with such limited experience should be concerning themselves with, if indeed this is the extent of their actual involvement. If it is, my advice to both would be to leave reviewing, AfD nominations etc to people who've been about long enough to know what they are doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

which quite frankly nobody with such limited experience should be concerning themselves with, WP:NAAC, but otherwise in this case, prolly true. would do advise both editors to learn the ropes a lil more based on what I’m seeing. — Knightoftheswords 15:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that this is at least the second time DHIRAJDHONA has accused someone of doing something as revenge in the past couple of days. See also this response to Sulfurboy. @DHIRAJDHONA, you absolutely must stop casting aspersions immediately. If you have evidence of someone doing something as revenge, you need to present that evidence instead of accusing another editor with no proof of their wrongdoing.

I am also concerned that you may have used an AI/LLM to file this report; if so, please immediately stop using AI/LLMs on Wikipedia and instead write in your own words. You have a good grasp of English and using your own words will make people much more likely to listen to you. Meadowlark (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Mongolian POVPUSHING

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

---

ChagataiBorjigin (talk · contribs) is engaged in tendentious POVPUSHING across several Mongol Empire related pages, typically revolving around removing or moving content such as non-Mongol names in Chinese/Turkic languages while adding Mongol-centric alternatives, notably in modern Cyrillic. While some of their edits are not necessarily wrong, their content is almost always low quality with bad grammar, bad citations, and often pedantic, and nationalistic. They are currently engaged in multiple edit wars and talk discussion across three pages over their changes, all of which revolve around wording and names .

The user has also been accused of using LLMs for discussion content. While I can't verify the veracity of the accusation, there does seem to be a discrepancy between their competency in discussions compared to main article contributions which have the grammatical awkwardness indicative of a non-native English speaker.

It's also clear that they are just arguing for the sake of POVPUSHING while ignoring the other users' arguments by WP:LAWYERING. In the talk discussion with me, they keep on using the argument that "Yuan China" should be changed to "Yuan dynasty" in the short description because "Yuan dynasty" is the default name, even though that is not how short descriptions work, and previously they changed "Yuan dynasty" to "Yuan Mongol Empire". They are clearly just interested in pushing "Mongolian" everywhere.

I was aware of this user for some months but was alerted to their behavior by User:Imcdc on my talk page. Ping involved users @Imcdc:, @Sunnyediting99:, @AirshipJungleman29:, @Beshogur:, @GnuUserr:. Qiushufang (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I want to respond briefly to the conduct concerns raised here. My intention has been to improve the historical accuracy of Mongol Empire-related articles, particularly where I believed Mongolian political terminology or historical names were underrepresented. I understand, however, that repeatedly restoring contested changes or continuing the same content dispute after reverts can be disruptive, regardless of my view of the underlying history. I willnot restore contested changes and will use talk pages and wider consensus processes before making further disputed edits in these topic areas. I also want to clarify that I am not trying to remove Chinese or Turkic material simply because it is non-Mongolian. Where I have proposed Mongolian forms or terminology, my intention has been to add historically relevant information, not to erase other attested forms. If specific edits were poorly sourced or grammatically weak, I am willing to correct or abandon them rather than defend them merely because I made them. Regarding the LLM allegation, I do not think speculation based on differences in my English proficiency is a reliable basis for judging my conduct. I am a non-native English speaker, and my article prose can be awkward. I would prefer that my edits be judged on their sources, contentvand editing behavior. Going forward, I am willing to slow down in these topic areas, avoid reverting contested material, and seek uninvolved input before making further disputed changes. I have also been learning Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines gradually, and I believe my editing has improved compared with earlier periods. I now try much more often to discuss contested changes on talk pages rather than simply restoring them. I am still learning, and where I misunderstand a policy or sourcing standard, I am willing to correct my approach. ChagataiBorjigin (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You didn't generate this response also with an LLM... right? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 19:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is another example where the user's lack of English competence is completely at odds with their more verbose replies. Qiushufang (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I studied English at university, even though it’s not my first language. My English isn’t perfect, but I’m very good at it, and I don’t use ai for this kind of thing at all ChagataiBorjigin (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is, and you may not even realize how obvious it is at your level of English fluency, is there's a dramatic difference in tone, structure, and fluency between things you clearly write yourself and things that clearly smell like LLM/AI. To a native English speaker, these differences are about as large as the difference between a sandwich and a bowl of soup. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Lying about not using LLM statistically is about one of the easiest ways to get a some block at this place. ~2026-44899-60 (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm inclined to believe this is LLM-generated: ChagataiBorjigin wants to respond briefly to the report but ends up spewing an immensely large paragraph. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I find it rather presumptuous to label my comment as LLM-generated simply because you think the wording is too elaborate. I wrote it myself. English is not my first language but I studied at college in English, and I am perfectly capable of writing a paragraph like this without ai. If you have evidence that I used an LLM please provide it, otherwise, please don't present an assumption. ChagataiBorjigin (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I am perfectly capable of writing a paragraph like this without ai
Then you might want to consider responding to Qiushufang's query about the discrepancy between what you wrote there versus the message you left on Beshogur's user page before it got removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on LLMs so can't comment via expertise (though it does seem very strange) on LLM usage, but Qiushufang is generally right to call out Chagatai and post this ANI.

While I am sympathethic to some of Chagatai's positions, like the ongoing discussion between me and them on Talk:Goguryeo or their views on the Mongol Empire, they really are POV pushing and Bludgeoning. It's one thing to be uncomfortable with the use of the word Yuan China, I myself think there's more nuance there, it's another thing to have a talk page discussion, abandon it months later, and then return to the topic and just try to force their edits through again. I believe they did this to me, Airship, Qiushufang, and who knows how many other users.

Not to mention, you can see here, I tried to help them learn what they were doing wrong/why they should really stop getting so many warnings but it seems they didn't take my advice to heart. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t use LLM for this kind of thing at all. ChagataiBorjigin (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

It's true that I read several sources and made several edits based on them. But after several edits were reverted, I read the rules more and started discussing them on the talk pages. So i'm still learning and I intend to continue improving my understanding of Wikipedia’s policies. ChagataiBorjigin (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Whether a comment sounds like ai is inherently subjective. I would prefer that this discussion focus on verifiable conduct like specific edits, sourcing, reverts and talk page behaviour. ChagataiBorjigin (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

It is focused on it in fact: it just have to advance yet past the mystery of having text like and from the same person (I think the fact more than the year had passed is a good explanation). ~2026-44899-60 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

A year ago I had much less understanding of wikipedia policies and dispute resolution processes than I do now. I accept that some of my earlier editing behaviour was inappropriat and particularly where I restored disputed changes instead of seeking consensus. I apologize for those mistakes. I've been learning the policies more carefully and I believe my approach has improved. Going forward, I'll avoid restoring contested edits, use talk pages and wider consensus processes and take more care with sourcing and wording. ChagataiBorjigin (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

And once again you (or rather your LLM) tries to completely avoid the point of discussion. This is typical LLM behaviour when asked to help in these situations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the characterizations being made about me but i've said what I need to say acknowledged my mistakes, apologized for them, and explained how I intend to change my editing approach. I don't have anything further to add unless an administrator has a specific question for me. ChagataiBorjigin (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

No one was talking about your understanding of Wikipedia policies, people were talking about the dramatic change in your writing style and fluency in English that has occurred in the past year. Choosing to ignore the topic and substance of a comment, and instead reply to things that weren't said, is not conducive to a productive discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:LETSFOCUSON. Morwen (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't even follow it, so asked for Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Golden_Horde. Beshogur (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

At Talk:Golden Horde, the editor is now extensively using LLM-smoothened text without fully knowing what they’re talking about. I was considering opening an ANI report myself, so I suggest an indefinite block. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that they're doubling down on the LLM point, and after reading WP:LETSFOCUSON, I reluctantly have to concur with Airship and support an indefinite block. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, based on the continued "let's focus on" posts, I've indeffed ChagataiBorjigin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Amusing related reading. ~2026-44899-60 (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Wow was this seriously two users using LLM to talk to each other? You gotta wonder how this might be becoming more and more frequent Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm more worrying they're eventually unveil a model intentionally introducing a common mistakes into generated text and without all that current flowery legalese (that is possibly an intentional feature). Not sure what all those LLM vigilantes would do then. ~2026-44899-60 (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Asserting that a warning was given automatically by Wikipedia is perplexing; do people even read LLM outputs before copypasting? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Repeated vandalism from socks of ~2026-41774-94 on Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie.

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

---

Hello,

I'd like to bring attention the vandalism of @~2026-41774-94 and his sock accounts: @~2026-43694-91 and @~2026-44584-05. The first 2 have been banned while the third one has made another vandalism edit similar to these 2 and is VERY likely to be a sock.

Evidence:

41774: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_Underpants:_The_First_Epic_Movie&diff=prev&oldid=1367662145

43694: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_Underpants:_The_First_Epic_Movie&diff=prev&oldid=1368407017

44584: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_Underpants:_The_First_Epic_Movie&diff=prev&oldid=1369502757

I have reported the third user to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/~2026-41774-94 page but I fear that may not be enough.

This user has been persisting in this vandalism and should be subject to a full IP block, ideally for a year or more. NarutoSan6000 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. IP also blocked for three months. Yue🌙 (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks! NarutoSan6000 (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Keshetsven - WP:NOTHERE on grounds of WP:RGW and WP:BATTLE, inability to assume Good Faith or work collaboratively

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

User whose majority of edits from the last 10 years have been made at Jason Arday in the last few days (76 edits between the article and talk page), and seems to simply be here to WP:RGW in that we're creating biased coverage of Jason Arday and as part of this are repeatedly asserting nefarious intent on the part of other editors to make Jason Arday look bad or Black people in general which they are trying to stop.

From my experience of interacting with them I initially removed a couple of edits they made for using inappropriate sourcing in a BLP and alerted them as to why where they immediately suggested I wasn't viewing them in good faith. Later that day they began edit-warring with another user and I gave them both warnings, despite this Keshetsven accused me of being friends with the other person (suggesting bad faith in my actions) and again accused me of not viewing them in good faith.

Yesterday in the morning I asked for an increase in page protection to ECP because there was repeated edit-warring going on by various accounts unrelated to this, some 7-8 hours later Keshetsven removed material I added with no reasonable explanation (and I believe was only removed because I'd added it) which was then undone by an uninvolved admin as part of implementing the RFPP request at which point Keshetsven has repeatedly asserted that I specifically made the RFPP request to go after them and I'm committing censorship.

I therefore believe this user is WP:NOTHERE but instead has only logged back into their otherwise largely dormant account to try and WP:RGW in terms how Arday is written about and is unable to contribute collaboratively as they clearly see everyone else as looking to bring Arday down and we're essentially working together to do so. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Personally, I too would have removed this particularly unpleasant bit of commentary, which you added, especially as it has been plucked from an article which criticises everyone involved in the issue, not just Arday (it calls Cofnas a "professional racist", for example). I note it has been removed again since. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Black Kite I originally placed it in a different section immediately following content on similar themes about how both supporters and detractors had used Arday and his racial identity for their own ends (that's why I summarised his comments on liberals and conservatives). Given Harper is a person of colour who has written about their experiences of being a Black person in academia and in particular how that affects conversations around hiring people of colour I thought it was a useful perspective.

  Someone else moved it to the location from where it was then removed from the article. It was removed again after an admin restored it because it had been challenged (we're quite obviously in WP:BURDEN territory here) which I don't have a problem with.

  My issue isn't people may not agree with it from a content perspective (that's why when it was removed I raised it on the article's talk page), my issue is that Keshetsven removed it without good explanation after having repeatedly accused me of being against them in other disputes they were having and then when I asked for said explanation they for instance claimed I was in violation of WP:OPINION even though I'd quite clearly attributed the views to their source. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Can we have some perspective, please? Arday was not an academic paragon and clearly there is legitimate critique of his work and life story, but he was just hounded to suicide by the media circus. Lowering the temperature would be advisable, rather than going after an editor understandably upset at what they see as a racist witch hunt. Fences&Windows 21:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It’s not Wikipedia’s position to right great wrongs. We go by what the sources say, not the beliefs of culture warring editors. — Knightoftheswords 22:26, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I was in part motivated to bring it here because other attempts at cooling the temperature had failed. Yes there appears to be understandable upset, but when it's gotten to the point of trying to present an impression that multiple other editors were essentially making negative edits about Arday out of racial malice or dislike it then something does need to give.

Thinking about it further today I almost get the feeling they were in some way looking for a fight because many of the comments they left in reply to me were repeatedly suggesting I was "out to get them" as it were (i.e. like the claim I had requested page protection just to spite them specifically), or were lengthy asking of questions that felt more like challenges than enquiries. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you may have read too much into my previous comments and jumped to conclusions. Should I not be given the benefit of the doubt? I'm not going to use Wikipedia jargon because I might be accused of using it wrong. I would appreciate constructive guidance as @GorillaWarfare did on my talk page, instead of a long list of indictments. The sudden page protection has restricted me from editting, which would be very frustrating for any newer contributor. Keshetsven (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You say you "appreciate construction guidance" but previous interaction shows the exact opposite, that in fact when guidance is offered you immediately become hostile to whoever offered it. In our second ever interaction, where I advised you that you were about to contravene rules on edit-warring you accused me of failing to assume good faith, that I was acting to defend "my friend" Hippo43 (even though I had warned them too), and I was asserting you as "guilty" of something. You did the same with Vulpes, as they've alluded below, where you essentially accused them of being on my side and not being fair in treatment to you.

I forgot to mention it in this ANI report until now but when you were edit-warring with Hippo you also appeared to be clicking the button to denote you were removing "vandalism" in reverting his edits, which not only doesn't meet our definition of vandalism but also shows you failing to assume good faith about other people.

For someone saying they should be allowed the benefit of doubt, you don't appear to show others that courtesy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually, you can see I apologised for not seeing in time that Hippo43 got the same warning. Although, he went straight back to war editing within less than 24 hours. The revert was not meant as vandalism. Keshetsven (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I have found my interactions with @Keshetsven to be kind of hostile and negative. They appear to be looking for a fight over anything, even when they skrited WP:3RR they refused to even engage with the process to find out what they had done wrong. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The process was explained like this: I have restored a revert you made on Jason Arday because after all of this discussion on edit warring you wanted 59 minutes past the 24 hour limit on WP:3RR to go right back to edit warring. Not really intelligible. Only below, I found out that " I was gaming the rules". I didn't even know the rules apply to a different paragraph, hence my questions which you responded with I don't really know what you want." Not really helpful in understanding the "59 minutes past the 24 hours" rule. My edit was incidental and a different paragraph which was removed only once, that is why I asked questions. Keshetsven (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Black Kite, just want to note that I restored that at one point because Keshetsven had removed it less than an hour outside of WP:3RR and I felt that was gaming the rules. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

DavidBrownId

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

---

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

Hello. This editor repeatedly gives the impression that they are not here to contribute to an encyclopedia and going off by their description on their user page, they do not even like Wikipedia and is also engaging in advocacy (contrary to WP:AGENDA), just like this discussion.

The unpleasant encounters started in Talk:Ivo Andrić, where the editor ignored every input from multiple editors about a RfC, had a hostile attitude and engaged in a personal attack (1 and 2), then repeatedly brushed off my warnings and doubled down with another personal attack (1 and 2). Nothing about the conduct of this editor gives me the impression that there is gonna be any constructive contribution. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Links for David to read: WP:YESPROMO, WP:COI, WP:NOTADVOCACY. It seems like you're not here to write an encyclopedia. This edit is immediate block material, and if you address other editors this way again, others will give up your editing priviledges for you. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 11:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The linked conduct and the discussion here puts this editor in pretty firm WP:NOTHERE territory. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment. The two most powerful Wikipedia rules/policies are WP:5P5 and WP:IGNORE. My approach to Wikipedia editorial work is based on pure academism and the above mentioned Wikipedia rules. If someone's comment is below the basic academic standards, my rejection of such comment is not an offense directed to the comment owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBrownId (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

My approach to Wikipedia editorial work is based on pure academism.

Yes. Your ego demands it; how can it be not true? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 11:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

This user wrote on his/her user page: "This user is currently suffering psychiatrically and might malfunction" DavidBrownId (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Proudly. And I've heard that a lot on this noticeboard; never once from someone civilized, though. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 12:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, you poor soul! Wikipedia is a mirror. Look at it, carefully DavidBrownId (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

No. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 14:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You misunderstood WP:IAR, as you did in the RfC. Its application is probably very rare and it does not actually give you the right to engage in personal attacks or disruptive editing. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

No one with a credible academic background cares about Wikipedia rules. All recorded human knowledge is written and will be written ignoring Wikipedia and its rules. Wikipedia will become true encyclopedia when it accept true academism and when only academics were allowed to write it. DavidBrownId (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

We're not interested in your views on what constitutes a "true academic background" or your personal interpretations of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. We expect editors to approach Wikipedia collegially, and to respect its rules. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Who are "we"? In the Ivo Andric article I removed false statement: "Andrić was of Catholic and Bosnian Croat origin.[7]" after checking attached three "references" none of them supporting the statement. Accused by StephenMacky1 that the removal was based on my personal view. Where do you see the collegial approach here? DavidBrownId (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Everyone here except you. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=AZ1x7gvwx_8C&q=andric#v=snippet&q=andric&f=false supports "Bosnian Croat origin", https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_Bosnia/OWQtAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=andric supports "Catholic family". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Wrong. No primary source supporting your claim. DavidBrownId (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

We're supposed to be using WP:Secondary sources, not primary. That's the difference between us and the academic authors you've been praising - we're literally supposed to work differently. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

A source is the secondary one if it has its own primary, otherwise it is not the source at all. DavidBrownId (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Its hard but possible to misinterpret that one-liner.

It could be read as having "improving" or "maintaining" as an actual result, not as intention to be reasonable, but it would require a precognition involved on a practice; not mentioning it is dishonest.

It could be read simply as "do it on your own risk: if it will happen to actually improve or maintain it, you'll be fine, otherwise you'll be in problems"; it better would include a warning about the risk.

Otherwise it could be read outright as "do it, and we'll tell you if you're in problem or not, as we please, after"; truly offencive then.

Which one is your interpretation of it (add one if I missed it)? ~2026-44935-43 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a campaign to hide the existence of British journalist and author Dora Righter ongoing on a globalist search engines. Would be better if you'll provide a direct link to the article, it's worth it. ~2026-44935-43 (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Who? "Globalist search engine"? Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

British journalist and author Dora Righter, who used the phrase "intellectual lunatic asylum" to describe Wikipedia in an article detailing an experiment where she created a user account to test the site's accuracy and oversight.

When you'll try to read about it, you'll see that they're hide it, to hide even merely existence of her. ~2026-44935-43 (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay great that doesn't concern us then and also has nothing to do with this thread anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The reason Dora Righter doesn't appear in search results is that she was called Rosemary Righter. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! ~2026-44935-43 (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I suggest just indef DavidBrownId. It seems unlikely they're going to get it anytime soon and so their behaviour will remain incompatible with editing here. They're free to go on ignoring Wikipedia without editing Wikipedia, and can go to Citizendium or something to find their academic only utopia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Reminder to all here WP:DNFTT. Let a passing admin indef them and move on. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I sense an insecurity more than an intention to troll from him, in his eagerness to display an intellectual superiority over the others here. It feels like a defense mechanism in response to the rejection he received here, and a damaged ego.

But alas. WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. People should go and find that elsewhere. As for now, he's not dumping original analyses into the article space, so the damage is just wasted editor time. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 14:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Uncommunitive user, problems with sourcing and LLM.

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

---

The Thai Land (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has numerous messages and warnings on their user talk about sourcing (not using WP:RS, using deprecated sources such as Wikipedia, etc), and about use of LLMs. They have not responded to any of these messages or warnings. Their behaviour does not appear to have changed either. Their edit summaries strike me as being unnatural in language too. Bringing the matter here as it's pointless to keep posting on a talk page when the user ignores it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Indef'd from mainspace until they communicate/show an understanding of the issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, those are WP:AISUMMARY. Just look at the timestamps between the edits, they're submitted through the mobile phone interface. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Probably a sock of User:ThefirstmanofThai in any case (who was blocked for similar rapid-fire LLM editing on August 10, three days before the sock was created. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

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

IP editor refusing to communicate

~2026-44094-18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a grand total of 32(!) separate TAs on the same IP, and has not once responded to a single talk page or user talk message. Both myself and @Yue have tried to get their attention on numerous occasions across their countless user talk pages , including once being blocked for 24 hours to try to get their attention. Nothing is working, and they are actively continuing adding unsourced or poorly sourced content (uses an unreliable source for which they were previously reverted and informed). Given that communication seems to be completely failing, can this IP be blocked from mainspace until they finally communicate? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

They've now created yet another TA, and restored their edit which used an unreliable source (WP:AEROROUTES) with the edit summary Are you stupid? There are two sources. - so it seems we also have a WP:CIVIL issue... It also shows they're receiving notifications... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

... and they've just restored the unreliable source for a third time . Note that I left an ANI notice on the new TA's talk page immediately after posting the above, so they have been notified of this discussion. They're rapidly approaching WP:NOTHERE territory. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

New user engaging in uncivil behavior

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

---

User:Shrektastic121 has been engaging in clear uncivil behavior, per their edits, behavior on their talk page, and edit summaries. User has repeatedly engaged in improperly explained deletions and other poorly explained edits, with unneeded and uncivil refrains in their edit summaries like "nice try though" [], "rotten tomatoes might wanna have a word with you [], and "a fine example of people ignoring information... now I'm starting to take it personally." []. When I noted this behavior on their talk page [], Shrektastic121 blanked their talk page, with edit summaries telling me to "calm down" and comparing my notices to me calling them racist [] []. When asked not to do this, Shrektastic121 blanked the notices again, calling me "shallow" and declaring that "its my page hence my choice" in their edit summary []. Requesting at least administrator comment to sort this out. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 14:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The editor in question has been a little spicier than is desirable, but you are not making the situation better. You left a templated warning that seems to accuse them of using their talk page as a "workspace for articles in progress or for self-promotion", which they have not done - no wonder they were confused. Yes, you appended a custom message to it, but per WP:OWNTALK, there is no prohibition on blanking warnings, so your warning is flatly wrong. You say they were "comparing my notices to me calling them racist", but that appears to be a clear misreading - what they said was "okay okay don't lose your temper, you' think i just suggested we have a let's be racist day or something. calm down"; in other words, they are suggesting you are overreacting.

Royz-vi Tsibele, I suggest trying to talk to people instead of just slapping boilerplate warnings on them. Shrektastic121, I suggest dialling your tone down a touch to avoid future issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos Thank you for the advice on this, will keep it in mind. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 15:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

i'm happy to reduce my tone down and will try to be more considerate with my words in the future Shrektastic121 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

thank you ♠PMC♠ Shrektastic121 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to hear it, both of you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

hopefully next time we speak is under more pleasant circumstances Shrektastic121 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Soapboxing and personal attacks by Oatavo Gonuar

Oatavo Gonuar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Oatavo Gonuar has been repeatedly adding aggressive and incoherent complaints to Talk:Hoteps without being specific enough for there to be anything to engage with productively. Their first complaint was this diff which, as a starting point, suggests some prior beef here. Eventually the complaint bloated up to this diff complete with complaints of censorship and talk of "Goebbels-like propaganda". They demanded that the Hoteps article be nominated for deletion but didn't do so themselves even though I told them how to (diff). Eventually this was disruptive enough that I gave them a final warning. After that it degenerated into personal attacks against myself (diff) and others (diff). I'm inclined to suspect trolling as their tone does not suggest an aggrieved Hotep. I'm still none the wiser as to what they are actually complaining about and I no longer care. I must admit that I am very mildly intrigued to know what "expect a formal complaint at Meta" is supposed to mean. If there are problems with that article then I'm sure that somebody else more level headed can articulate them. This is definitely a case of WP:NOTHERE. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Trying to discuss what is to be done with an article this problematic is not "trolling", but having all discussion of content muted because you are afraid to respond on the talk page, is not a "personal attack" to mention your name for having done this. Oatavo Gonuar (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You never tried to discuss what was to be done, though. You just kept saying "this article is everything that's wrong with Wikipedia". What's one simple change that could move the article in the direction you think it should go? Start there, and maybe we can get it to the right place. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It's actually an entire article about a derogatory exonym that doesn't mention that it's a derogatory exonym. DanielRigal perhaps wouldn't allow that to be mentioned, considering how proprietary of even the talk page he seems. He speculated above if I am a "Hotep", but I don't believe anyone actually self identifies as a Hotep, nor is it a group or organization, just a slur. Not a bit of evidence is presented that anyone at all self identifies as a "hotep"... Oatavo Gonuar (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a reading comprehension issue here. I said "their tone does not suggest an aggrieved Hotep". Key word: "not". To be clear, I'd be more sympathetic if they were. Nobody likes reading critical coverage of a group that they are in and responding defensively to that is more understandable than ranting when one doesn't even have any skin in the game. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand how it can't be NPOV...Oatavo Gonuar (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, then what's the best way to put forward that while it may originally have been an attempt at an endonym, as claimed in https://theoutline.com/post/1412/what-hotep-means, it got turned around? It's not as simple as adding "derogatory exonym" to the first sentence, tempting as that may be. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I just read that, and while it mentions that it was a greeting used by a few (very few) people in previous decades, it doesn't make clear to me that there were any individuals or people who called themselves hoteps, in other words, an exonym used by others, perhaps juvenile, to label certain people with an exonymic label. The source you gave also makes that clear but the wp article doesn't. Oatavo Gonuar (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, yes, I see that. I misread the initial description. Let me take another look and see if I can phrase it clearly without sending it in the wrong direction. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Oatavo Gonuar: You are a new user so I will give you the benefit of a doubt, but while your intention was to highlight a problem you believe is/was in the article Hoteps, I can see how some of what you wrote could be interpreted as soapboxing and making a personal attack.

On Wikipedia grievances are resolved through civil discussion based on Wikipedia's policies, the most relevant ones to your argument being WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. After a positive resolution of this case, I encourage you to readd your objections to Talk:Hoteps but with a focus only on policy. Also, consider this comment your first notice about soapboxing and personal attacks. Yue🌙 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

DanielRigal, I don't think edit warring to keep their comment off the talk page was the best approach. NOTFORUM can be overpoliced as times. The article has been critiqued before as an attack page upon Afrocentrism and biased, so a more sensitive approach would have been to ask for more detail on why they felt so strongly. We can see now that it's about it being a "derogatory exonym", which while not directly supported by any provided sources at least lets us understand their viewpoint. They're arguing that "hotep" is a label used to tag people negatively and not something anyone identifies as. Fences&Windows 19:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I notice even wikt:hotep claims it is derogatory, and there's only one definition there. Oatavo Gonuar (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I echo what was said above; your cause may be a righteous one, but the way to go about it on Wikipedia is to bring reliable sources that already say what you know to be true, have a civil discussion about how to bring the article in line with policy in light of those new RS, and remember Hanlon's Razor; if someone isn't agreeing with you, assume there's a miscommunication before assuming malice. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

User adding unsourced information.

User @Chance J.G 2008 has been persistently adding unsourced original information to articles, such as on these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shrek_5&diff=prev&oldid=1369164960

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Angry_Birds_Movie_3&diff=prev&oldid=1360950500

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_Train_Your_Dragon:_The_Hidden_World&diff=prev&oldid=1360185667

He's also been rude to other editors such as here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog&diff=prev&oldid=1360283587

I'd suggest someone block him (preferrably indefinitely) for persistently adding unsourced information NarutoSan6000 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. Yue🌙 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Red link editor arguing and adding unsourced information

User @Kelsykelsykarter2 has been adding unsourced content and than arguing for no reason when I revert it and kindly ask them to add a source.

Examples are:

Can they be blocked or something please? thanks! Bloxzge 025 (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, Unsourced? I literally put the source, what are you talking about?.

Can we actually block them for blatantly lying? The edits are literally there.

Btw, I was editing about the Zamboanga school shooting where this person keep editing that the shooter was 7 grade student despite many reports including quotes to the police said that he was identified as a 9 grade but he still kept to reverting it saying that it was "unsourced" despite as I said, i literally put a source Kelsykelsykarter2 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You added one source for the grade while several others said grade 7. I removed the grade number to avoid edit-warring, and you still kept arguing. You also added no source for the name of the shooter. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

okay, As I said, you can look for the sources about the shooter being a 9 grade student, I dont have to give it to you to prove it, multiple sources has confirmed it so theres no point in putting 3+ sources in the same thing when it has been confirmed, isnt it? Now, if you want to ill give you some sources

https://www.rappler.com/philippines/mindanao/ateneo-de-zamboanga-shooting-august-18-2026/

https://amp.dw.com/en/philippines-student-livestreams-school-shooting/a-78406343

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/17/asia/school-shooting-philippines-intl-hnk

https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2026/08/18/grade-9-philippine-student-allegedly-kills-grade-10-student-before-taking-own-life-in-western-mindanao-school#goog_rewarded

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2286982/zamboanga-city-school-shooting-suspect-dead-dilg/amp

As you can see its easily verified info, already confirmed by sources like CNN and DW, if I deleted the edits and didnt let it "unsourced" as you said is because as mentioned previously, I already put a source and theres no point in giving multiple sources in something easily verifiable.

as for the name of the shooter, youre right theres no source, I made a mistake because I was trying to revert the edit of him being 7 grade, I havent put his alleged name again Kelsykelsykarter2 (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

oh and BTW, the sources saying that the shooter was a 7 grade talked about "Journalist in the scene talking about a 7 grade suspect" while the others sources cited direct Philippines authorities identifying him as a 9 grade.

The multiple sources saying that he was a 7 grade is because theres something called "Preliminary Info" Kelsykelsykarter2 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

well, idk if its based but I linked a bad article in that "preliminary info" hyperlink, my bad, but you got it! Kelsykelsykarter2 (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bloxzge 025: ANI is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This appears to be something that could have been resolved on the user's talk page, seeing that this appears to be a misunderstanding. --ABx11 (she/they) 06:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Can we at least lock the 2026 Zamboanga City school shooting page though? a lot of people keep vandalizing it and adding unsourced information. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You are free to request page protection. Finfixer (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

How though? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the page to do it. Please review Wikipedia:Protection policy first though. Finfixer (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Revoke TPA

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

---

After I issued warnings to the user, they insulted me; later, after being blocked, they insulted my ethnicity. Could someone revoke this user's access to the talk page? Kajmer05 (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Uncivil user

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

---

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

This user started a talkpage thread at Talk:Karuppu (film)#Gross arguing about the film's listed gross. When another user and I pointed out to policies and the unreliability of sources, they started calling the other user "Ultimate Star Ajith fan" and "This person is nothing but a petty fan of an actor and is trying to downgrade another actor's box office". When I told them to be civil they responded "Nobody asked your opinion bitch.. Go suck somebody else's dick.. Leave my dick alone..". Vestrian24Bio 10:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deakin Macquarie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

User is continuing personal attacks as ~2026-45193-63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — Czello ^(music) 11:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Paid editor disregarding the AfC process

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

Paid editor associated with Draft:European Centre for International Political Economy. Their first 'infraction' against the AfC process (which they are required to use as a paid editor) was resubmitting their draft without improvement after it had already been declined SEVEN times. As a result, I rejected the draft; after which they inappropriately moved it to mainspace (I have since moved it back)

This is a paid editor who has become frustrated from their inability to succeed within the scope of our requirements and so has now decided to ignore them and disruptively push their draft to mainspace anyway. They should be blocked from page creation and moving at the very least. Athanelar (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I would note that paid editing is discouraged, not banned. However, it seems clear enough this user is not here to constructively contribute to Wikipedia and has disregard for the standarts of this Wikipedia.

I second an indefinite page creation and talk page ban enforced by a block to the same effect. They need to remain in the draftspace and on talk pages. Finfixer (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

7 times, yikes. A simple Google serarch tells me that this think-tank is widely cited in news/op-eds and had done a decent amount of research over 20 years, I am not sure why this user is unable to get a decent, well-sourced draft. Agree with Finfixer, an indef ban on page creation, WP:NOTHERE Ar1201u1 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hoaxer active

• ~2026-45096-61 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-44713-02 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

There's a hoaxer using TAs, most recently Special:Contributions/~2026-45096-61, who appears to be repeating the same style as a previous vandal. The person added some hoax material using the edit summaries "Heard this in d23 expo" and "GOCE request", falsely making Mary Costa dead and falsely adding Peg Dixon to the Sleeping Beauty film.

This vandal added false credits to the film Hexed, right after the TA Special:Contributions/~2026-44713-02 added an unverifiable credit, following a similar false credit from the TA Special:Contributions/~2026-40733-35 which got blocked a month ago.

The BLP Timothy Dalton appears to have had many visits from this hoaxer, using multiple TAs. It's now under protection.

Can we get some blocks on underlying IPs? This person is persistent and harmful. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

A solid case of WP:DUCK, not sure if TAs can be blocked though Ar1201u1 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Merulike uncivility and POVPUSH

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

---

I was told to post this here

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

Prime example of a Single-purpose account, since practically all edits by the user is related to certain views on school bullying, I do not think that this in itself is bad but the user often goes against RS to WP:CPUSH. I have reverted many edits by this user do to problems mostly related to WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. They also remove huge parts of articles without an explanation and vandalised my user page. The user has confused me reverting their edits as me simply disagreeing with their sentiment, which isn't true. They have resorted to name calling such as "4channer incel" and "autistic tcc member" (again, not true) which I find to be simply pathetic, disruptive and unprofessional behavior. They also recently left a message in a completely unrelated talk page conversation which contained more blatant personal attacks, as well as saying that they were gonna report me to the police in countries I don't even live in. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You falsely claimed 'undue weight' and removed peer reviewed research and studies from criminologists and forensic psychologists disputing the bullying hypothesis as the motivator for school attacks in columbine article. And you removed a dissenting author who also disagreed with the claim that bullying being the motivator of the attack. My edits do not fall under failed verification or CPUSH because I've provided reliable and verified sources to all my claims while you insistently remove all citations from articles that go against the bullying motivator.

On his talkpage and he has NUMEROUS complaints by other editors over his disruptive edits over school attack and warnings to stop. He's been blocked from editing articles about school attacks like the Eslov school attack already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AFeatherlessBipehead#October_2025

I didn't 'vandalise' your userbox. I restored your edit that indicated you live in Finland, bragged about owning a knife, are a high school student and indicated you have serious mental illnesses and took a screenshot because we've seen far too many copycat school attacks by teens who are the exact same with the same social media profiles. I did it out of caution. Merulike (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

If OP wants to delete something from their userpage it is their perogative to do so, and you don't get to undo that just because you feel you're doing a service. Vowing to call the police is also not on - not sure if it strictly counts as a legal threat but it certainly has a WP:CHILLINGEFFECT. — Czello ^(music) 16:48, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

To me atleast, this is absolutely a legal threat AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I'll accept a punishment for that if the administrators deem it so. I've stated before that we've seen far too many copycat attacks by people with the same exact social media profiles on sites like Wikipedia or Reddit. Your infoboxes contained a lot of very concerning content Merulike (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Not in the slightest but sure LOL AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Mate, you consistently edit school shooting articles and remove police sources and studies that contradict your narrative of the bullying motivator by falsely claiming failed verification and undue weight which is similar to what TCC members do on other social media sites, your infobox contained information that had you bragging about owning a knife, indicated you suffered from depression and anxiety, are a high school student living in Finland, and your account history is almost all about school attacks. How is that not extremely concerning behavior? Merulike (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

For goodness sake, I have NOT said that I live in Finland!?!? Stop spreading lies about me. I had a userbox that said "this user owns a pocketknife". how is that relevant?? A larger proportion of your edits have been about school attacks, should I be concerned with you? AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I would advise you to not stray into ad hominem because generally you have been the more civil party here. Finfixer (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. It's just so frustrating when people claim blatant lies about you. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You did have an userbox stating you are from Finland if I recall right. However, you are right that it has no bearing on this question. Finfixer (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

No I did not, I had a Finland-related one AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I am also a bit on the edge on whether it is a legal treath. I would think it at least goes against the spirit of the prohibition of legal treaths to treathen involving the police on a Wikipedia dispute, though I must note the treath has no possibility of succes. But I would certainly consider it harasment in this context. Finfixer (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I had problems with BLP 10+ months ago but it was resolved and I have not had any blocks since.

I have never tried to indicate that I have any "serious mental illnesses" and to me these kind of comments read like blatant personal attacks. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but you have other complaints by other users over edit warring and disruptive edits. You accuse me of CPUSH when I've given cited reliable and neutral sources that you removed and claimed false verification, or removed the edits of other editors on other articles about school attacks by falsely claiming undue weight as well. Merulike (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The user also claims in the post on my talk page that I "glorify" and "celebrate" murderers, which I have not done at any point and is yet another personal attack. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment of third party user.

Hello people of this fine noticeboard. I have adviced @AFeatherlessBipehead to take this issue here. I came across this conflict, which appears to haver started in January this year, and that has involved multiple persistent edit wars on a sensitive BLP page, the Viertola school shooting.

It appears to me both users have failed to take reasonable steps to discuss the underlying content dispute, which seems very minor. Instead, and even in my recent talk page starter of a discussion, they have resorted to accusing eachother of policy violations and of POV pushing. This issue has spilled into the username page where @Merulike has edited the user page of featherless. Both users have been involved in warning eachother and have been reprimanded for their lack of discussion. It also appears this conlict may be present in multiple articles concerning the same subject.

In light that Featherless has history of problematic editing in the field, I propose a topic ban on school shootings for 3 months, and a further 6 month probationary period for the same topic.

In light of the namecalling, personal attacks, police treaths, and editwarring of Merulike, and the apparent single purpose nature of the account, I propose a 2 to 3 month ban from the English Wikipedia and a 6 month topic ban followed by 6 months of probation for school shootings. Finfixer (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

May I ask why am I to receive a longer ban on editing school shooting articles than he is? He's removed reliable sources and studies from multiple articles including ones that were posted by other editors in order to push his POV and he falsely claimed failed verification and undue weight. Merulike (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

So did you? In fact more. and the failed verification and undue weight were real concerns especially with the infoboxes. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

'Failed verification' was adequately explained and refuted to you. The official Poliisi report that concluded the attack was not due to bullying does not constitute 'failed verification'. A peer reviewed academic study and a dissenting author disputing the bullying hypothesis on the Columbine article does not constitute 'undue weight'. Merulike (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

No, you made the infobox have drastically different content than the article body. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I propose the longer topic ban so that the cumulative effect is Wikipedia ban followed by 3+6. If I just said 3+6 the broader ban and topic ban would end at the same time. But that's just my proposal on the basis tha your aproach to dispute seems to have been edit warring+severe incivility, while Featherless has it seems only engaged in edit warring. Finfixer (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Here a link to the talk page discussion. There is also a previous discussion of the same nature on the talk page

Talk:Viertola school shooting#c-Finfixer-20260817170900-Discussion of the question

Now I courtesy ping @Zzz plant and @Primefac as they may have something to add to this matters based on previous interactions. Finfixer (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Merulike blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, including personal attacks and legal threats. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the police call treath, that is practically impossible to carry out at all, is a bit unfounded to be considered a legitimate treath. Additionally it isn't clear if police is a legal treath or some other treath. That's why I would caution against going for an indefinite ban.

I would consider these transgressions severe incivility in a long standing dispute where neither side is an angel. I think the actions of Featherless, the more experienced user, in failing to respond in the correct manner (he has edit warred and failed to actively seek any form of dispute resolution) or with reasonable civility and good faith presumption for dealing with a new user, have contributed to inflaming the situation. If anything their actions have given the new user a wrong understanding of conduct norms, like reverting, on Wikipedia . They should have known to let it be or to seek a third opinion before things got so bad discussion with Merulike became impossible. They should have been more diplomatic and presumed good faith.

Thus, I think Merulike can improve if made to cool down for a few months. But I would be open to the proposal of a 6 month proper ban instead since Merulike is continuing incivility here on ANI. Finfixer (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Even if we disregarded all disruptive editing and reverting the user did on the school shooting articles, the fact that they threatened to contact and also claimed that they already contacted the police, called me many insulting things (said both that I was a child and at the same time involuntary celibate which is really, really disturbing and weird) as well as vandalising my user page, I think the indefinite block was justified. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Especially with your own hands not being clean here, it's time to let the matter drop. We're not keen on gravedancing. Ravenswing 21:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

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