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

Reywas92 - Repeated civility failings, aspersions, and refusal to take responsibility for their edits

Reywas92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has slowly becoming more problematic over the last few months in their edits on the Aviation WikiProject. As many editors on this noticeboard will be well aware of, there's long been a problem with the standard of sourcing on these articles, which myself and various other editors have slowly been cleaning up. Reywas92 seems to be dead-set against such efforts, routinely restoring swathes of content with the bare minimum of sourcing. I've never complained about this, and never will, as a single reliable source which verifies a large amount of content is infinitely better than no source at all, and improving sourcing is what my goal has been.

However, more recently their edits have taken a more problematic turn, with extremely WP:POINTY edit summaries , and in two cases restoring a huge number of unreliable sources in their rush to revert myself . Those unreliable sources include flight trackers (agreed as WP:SYNTH at RSN ), sources which were 404 pages on addition, booking engines, and airline homepages (which of course don't verify anything...). When I attempted to discuss these issues with them and the other editors involved, their response has been to fling aspersions and insults towards myself, refusing to recognise that it's a normal activity for recent changes patrollers to remove content which was added without a supporting source, and refusing to take responsibility for the restoration of large numbers of problematic sources. Just a few of the recent messages, which effectively show it's nearly impossible to actually discuss content without them starting to comment on other editors, as this list includes nearly every single reply they've made across three talk pages:

• You deleted accurate information! It is a pain for you to make more work for everyone, including yourself, by reverting and removing appropriate content. Booking engines and flight trackers are not bad sources! What is bad is deleting the content altogther when it is trivially easy to be verified. Again, stop pretending this is complex or controversial content! Add more cn tags, but stop deleting things unless you believe they are wrong.
• ... stop pretending that you need to be the cop enforcing it this way. There are sources and this content is easily verifiable, if not already verified by sources already in the page. You make this so much harder for everyone by artificially limiting sources that can be used even when they are perfectly reliable for straightforward, uncontroversial content.
• You are overzealous about limiting what actually verifies content and removing information rather than simply tagging or adding an alternative source.
• ... You make this so much more complicated than it is. Stop making more work for yourself and everyone else as if this were controversial or potentially harmful or something.
• It is such a massive pain to manually fix the mess you make by deleting accruate, verifiable information.

They also previously made a long comment on my talk page, which included this - ... Why don't you be useful...

It's worth noting that on both of the articles where they recently restored bad sources, they had never edited those articles prior to reverting my removals. The same previously happened at Bratislava Airport where they reverted having never previously edited the article. This does point somewhat to them stalking my edits, which is rather concerning, although there may well be an innocent explanation for this.

I've said to them previously that I have no issues with them improving sourcing across the WikiProject, the reasons for this hopefully being obvious. However, I very much draw a line when they start restoring swathes of problematic content and refuse to take responsibility for it, and start throwing out accusations and POINTY edit summaries. As a veteran editor with over 80k edits, they should absolutely know better than to send some of the messages they've been sending, and they should be well versed with the literally perfectly normal practice of reverting unsourced edits, a practice which they seem to have taken umbrage to. At this point, given messages like ... Why don't you be useful... or It is such a massive pain to manually fix the mess you make..., I feel like some kind of admonishment is needed, and for Reywas92 to take a step back and recognise that Wikipedia has policies in place, and editors following such policies shouldn't be the subject of repeated attacks. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Danners has repeatedly been deleting accurate information from articles to the annoyance of numerous editors. It is creating a lot of work to restore deleted content that is easily verifiable. The airline destinations in these tables are straightforward, uncontroversial information, but rather than adding sources to improve the articles, Danners has often removed them altogether in large-scale edits that are hard to parse and restore to its original state with improvements. I acknowlege that a couple of my recent edits restored some less-than-optimal citations in addition to the verifiable content, but when there are other sources that do in fact reliably verify information, Danners has nevertheless removed them and the information rather than improving the pages with more and better sources. As I pointed out on talk pages, these sources are not in fact the site covered by the linked RSN and do otherwise verify the information, and I believe this is making things more complicated than they need to be. The innocent explanation to my edits is that I want these articles to be more complete and accurate – my edit to the Brataslava article was an improvement that restored accurate content that Danners deleted and I added sources that verified it – I addressed his concern with the page! I request that Danners consider checking whether information is correct or not before removing it, and adding sources rather than simply reverting or deleting those he doesn't like. I appreciate his work patroling airport-related articles, but many of his edits are reverting good changes rather than implementing improvements. Reywas92^Talk 16:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know how often I’ve pointed out to you that not only is reverting unsourced additions a normal recent changes patrol activity, it’s explicitly permitted by policy - I even quoted the section of WP:V which supports that. Removing unsourced content which has languished in articles for years is also supported by that policy. These articles have been so poorly sourced for so long that they’ve been overdue a cleanup for a long, long time. It’s also worth stating that this has been litigated to death in previous ANI filings, with the result being the same - no policy is being breached, and unsourced content has no place on Wikipedia. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm saying to use some common sense and think about what will actually improve the article – just deleting accurate, longstanding content because it's technically permitted does not improve the article, and you could work on adding some of those sources yourself! Adding general sources can also easily address the cleanup issues, and it's "languishing" because it's not causing problems when it's correct. It's unverifiable content that has no place on Wikipedia, and we would be better off if you added that verification instead of simply deleting everything on sight. You literally just got blocked for edit warring to delete information when, sure, the IP adding it didn't include a source, but it was trivial for another editor to find one (and me to add general sources that also verified it) because the IP was actually helping with accurate content! When I patrol recent changes I try to assess whether something is correct or not and perhaps help with any additional changes or sourcing that would make the article better before reflexively reverting. Reywas92^Talk 17:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

What you think is common sense isn't what anyone else might consider to be common sense. See WP:NOCOMMON. Imploring Danners430 to provide sources for material other people added runs afoul of WP:BURDEN. It's a bit absurd to expect one editor to add material they think is correct and then force another editor to play 'Where's Waldo' to go about the Internet trying to find the source they used for the information they've added. No, the burden lies with the editor who adds the material, per WP:V policy. As for "not causing problems when it's correct"; if it's not sourced, then how do you or anyone else know it's correct? Not only is Danners430 not out of line for removing this material, your admonition that he has to provide sources is completely out of sync with policy. If you don't want Danners430 to remove material, don't chastise them for it. Instead, go and find sources for the material you want to add or be kept. That's your burden, not Danners430's. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

That's "Where's Wally" for our British editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

This is making me feel peely-wally. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Cries in currently-sunburnt ginger Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It continues to baffle me how the people adding this unsourced stuff start screaming when it's removed entirely cromulently. If you added it, then you clearly have the source right there that you added it from, right? ...right? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

He was blocked, correctly, because he misunderstood what edit warring was. If you know where all the sources are, so why aren't you adding them? CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 04:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Concerningly, Reywas has now turned up at a discussion where I was requesting advice from ToBeFree specifically to avoid an edit war… again, a talk page where they’ve never previously edited from what I can see. The persistent stalking is becoming very tiring. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm providing valid input about these sources because I also want these to be cited without the citations being challenged. You said you couldn't find a timetable or route map for the airlines, and I linked to them for you. There's no prohibition on constructive contributions like this and I want to be able to work with you – I want to help establish how these sources can be accessed and used since they do in fact reliably verify the content and do not need to be removed from articles. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Reywas92 did you follow Danners430's edit history to go to that discussion? grapesurgeon (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is allowed, I am trying to be constructive and do not intend to bother Danners with it. He did not want to edit war on the Katowice article and I don't either (there was also the original TA edits), and discussion like this to identify usable sources can help resolve the concerns about the sources in the article. — Reywas92^Talk 14:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Please just avoid doing that in general, people find it offputting. Especially given that the two of you have been in conflicts across many pages, it's a bad look that you're apparently following their edits. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It would appear that they are still doing this - - all four articles this is their first ever contribution from what I can see, mere days after I edit them. As I stated above, I have no issue with them providing sources (and in the case of the last example, it was a faux pas on my part with the wrong date formatting)… but the same pattern is repeating itself - stalking my contributions, and doing the bare minimum in what would appear to be an effort to undermine the work going on to improve sourcing. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:20, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Outside of the accusation of stalking, what is the issue with these edits? Katzrockso (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Have I made any other accusations? No, the issue here is that they are stalking another editor’s edits. The issue I have, which isn’t a behavioural one, is that they appear to do the bare minimum required - while many, many other editors, including myself, are going through and finding reliable independent sources, Reywas is stalking my cleanup activities and doing the minimum required to keep these articles from being labelled as requiring sources. Thats not a behavioural issue - but the stalking absolutely is, and it’s getting exceptionally tiresome… especially after they’ve already been warned about it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:52, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Concur with Grapesurgeon. Following Danners430 like this isn't allowed. Joining discussions on a person's talk page that you never edited before when you are in dispute with one of those people is out of line and crosses into WP:HOUNDING. There are reasons people have their contributions publicly available. This isn't one of them. You might think it's collegial, but when Danners430 is already voicing concern about WP:HOUNDING violations and you show up in a discussion on a user's talk page? That's very easily, and rightfully in my opinion, perceived as crossing the line into WP:HOUNDING territory. Don't do that again. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Got it. — Reywas92^Talk 20:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Danners430's conduct. Airline articles are a dumpster fire of an area, and I don't think it unreasonable for those that support flightcruft to take the responsibility to source these things. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I just have never been able to get my mind around the flightcruft approach. Who exactly is the reader out there saying "You know what I need? Travelocity, but vaguer and I can't buy tickets." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

As NRP says, "Wikipedia isn't a travel guide". Moreover, we have a sister project, Wikivoyage which explicitly IS a travel guide. Wikipedia's role is to be an encyclopedia, not a transient catalogue which needs updating on a seasonal schedule. Cabayi (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It's worth saying, there was a huge RfC litigating whether these lists should be included, and the outcome was no consensus - so whether we like it or not (and my preference was to remove), it's been discussed at great length and there's no consensus to remove them, problematic as they can be. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I think Reywas92 is being unnecessarily rude in all this. Don't communicate to colleagues like that. From what I'm seeing, I side with Danners430; seems like Reywas92 is leaning towards treating Wikipedia as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE source of information, not a general encyclopedia. grapesurgeon (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Reywas92's first sentence they contributed to this discussion was very instructive for me - Danners has repeatedly been deleting accurate information from articles to the annoyance of numerous editors. No mention of "verifiable", let alone "verified" - accurate was the word used. That speaks to the misalignment of WP:V and, by extension, WP:OR. I echo everyone above that Danners430 has been acting appropriately. Daniel (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

They are accurate, verifiable, AND often already verified, as I mentioned multiple times. There's absolutely no original research involved, and if a citation is not already on the page (Danners often removes them), they are trivially easy to find. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Doubling down on the accusations. A bold move. Seasider53 (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

And are you able to give examples of where I removed a source - the criteria here being that the source I removed meets the criteria set out at WP:RS, hasn't been agreed as unreliable at WP:RSN, and actually verifies the content under discussion? Specifically examples (plural), since I apparently do this often.

I very frequently remove non-reliable sources - and I make no apology there. I frequently clean up airport pages, which usually includes the removal of tens of WP:AEROROUTES citations, replacing them with {{cn}}. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:09, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

In the Katowice Airport edit you removed the general sources at the top to the Airport's site and FlightConnections. You also removed not only the Ryanair source (I understand you were concerned about that just being the homepage – the timetable is built into that page and I've now replaced it with a different timetable link that should verify more easily), but also the destinations that were cited to that. Same with the Wizzair destinations. I just added a better, more direct verification link than the homepage, but you had removed the destinations along with it. They are accurate and had a source, albeit not the correct link, but here you didn't put in a {cn} tag on them like you've done elsewhere (though the general sources also cited them), just removed altogether. I think editors in this space can work better with general sources (for the airline or airport) and tagged items more easily than when the list is imcomplete and people don't know what needs to be added or sourced better. Reywas92^Talk 15:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

So that is precisely one (1) example... so I'm unsure how that fits the definition of often.

And let's break that edit down: That edit you link was reverting a TA which was restoring a version of the page that you originally created - because yes, you added a couple of general sources, but also restored each and every unreliable source which had previously been removed. I don't know how else to explain this to you - you take responsibility for content you add or restore. Yes, I was concerned about the fact that the Ryanair, LOT (which I incorrectly labelled as Wizzair in subsequent discussions) and Pasazer homepages didn't verify the content they were tagged against, and I was clear about that in my original revert after they'd been introduced. In every subsequent discussion you've focussed on the fact you added two sources... and have yet to acknowledge that you restored the content that had originally been challenged, namely those three problematic sources.

I still fundamentally disagree that www.lot.com (used to verify LOT routes), www.ryanair.com (used to verify Ryanair routes) and www.pasazer.com (used to verify Lufthansa Cargo routes) are good sources to verify that an airline has a regularly scheduled flight between two airports - yes, elsewhere on those websites there are sources... but those specific URLs? I labelled them as non-sources, and I stand by that statement.

So let's start again - you've provided one singular example (arguments aside). You claim that I often removes them - so unless the definition of "often" is now "once", where's your evidence to back up your accusation? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The other one from the other day – not only did you remove the source, you removed the content. But the two general sources already verifying the table also verified that, so it could have remained and still be appropriately verifiable. It's not an "accusation", you objectively often remove sources, though they are typically the ones you find to be inadequate. Reywas92^Talk 16:01, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m astounded that you just don’t seem to get it, really I am…

• Nowhere in that source does it state that Turkish fly from Bole to Istanbul - that is a simple fact. That link takes you to a list of cities that Turkish fly to - it says nothing about what routes take you to those cities. The source, quite simply, does not verify the content.
• Yes of course the content was removed along with the source - another editor added that content and used that source to verify it. That source didn’t verify the content being added, so it was reverted. That is how Verifiability works - it’s not rocket science.

Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

But the content was in fact verified by the general sources, so it didn't need to be removed. Keeping it still met our verifiability requirements! This is what I mean by making things harder than it needs to be, that you can assume good faith from editors adding accurate things with a source, so even if a source they're trying to use isn't perfect, perhaps other sources already in the article also verify it or another one can be used. Just because you're technically allowed to remove things with a perfect source right on top of it doesn't mean this is the way it has to be done. Most of what you do is great, but when you're reverting, templating, and reporting new users when they're just trying to help, it can be less helpful to the article. Reywas92^Talk 16:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You're both wrong and both right on this one. That addition/removal wasn't not at all supported by the source provided inline with it. The source only confirms that Turkish Airlines has a presence at the airport, not that it flies specifically to Istanbul from there. So Reywas92, you are incorrect. The general sources do show this, and after some digging you can discover that it's Turkish Airlines, so a weak citation. Using that as proof of 'often' isn't much proof. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I was able to click the link and verify the specific route. I just had to click a few extra buttons. Katzrockso (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

You've been on Wikipedia for 2 decades, you know our verifiability policies. Which part of "Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] them may be removed." are you having an issue with? If it's not directly cited, it can be removed. Full stop. By anyone. At any time. And not permitted to be readded without a specific supporting reference. Canterbury Tail talk 15:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Permissibility per policy is not the highest attainable goal. It is technically permissible for someone to go around nominating every single article they find for deletion, tagging every uncited sentence as , or objecting to every PROD in the queue, but I think an editor who did that would quickly be sanctioned at ANI. Katzrockso (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. It's also permissible to add content to articles without a citation. That doesn't mean it won't be removed, per policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

If someone were going around and removing the sentence "Paris is the capital of France" for being uncited, I think most editors would find that disruptive. I haven't had a close enough look at the diffs to understand the context and decide who is "right", but I reject the idea that any removal of uncited material is automatically immune from criticism (just like many different edits permissible by the letter of policy aren't immune from criticism). Katzrockso (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Handily, WP:V covers this; "any facts or claims challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations". Nobody is going to challenge that Paris is the capital of France. So if Editor A adds a passage that is relatively obscure as fact, but doesn't support it, and Editor B removes it as unsupported, then Editor A should find a citation to support it before placing it back. That's how it's supposed to work. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you've completely missed my point, but I've said my piece. Katzrockso (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

It’s worth pointing out that through all their replies, they haven’t once addressed the reason they were brought to this noticeboard - their continued incivility in edit summaries and talk page comments. I’m beginning to wonder if they care at all about that behaviour, which would be incredibly concerning. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm worried by Danners430's misrepresentation of discussions and consensus. They repeatedly claimed that WP:RSN discussions determined that use of booking engines was SYNTH. ToBeFree asked Danners430 why they hadn't cited the RSN discussion, to which Danners430 admitted they weren't able to find the discussion in the archives. At one point, he cited this discussion, which didn't seem to reach a consensus and isn't directly germane to booking engines. Katzrockso (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Right, because the huge archives in RSN being difficult to navigate when you can’t recall the exact search term to use to find the discussion you’re looking for is a misrepresentation…? What exactly happened to WP:AGF? And as for FR24, very few discussions at RSN ever get formally closed with a closing remark and formal outcome. I challenge any editor to read through that discussion and come to any conclusion other than the general consensus was that flight tracking data is not reliable to verify regularly scheduled flights. That’s not misrepresentation - it’s doing the same thing any discussion closer would do. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 05:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Where is the RSN consensus? Katzrockso (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel like this is a potential digging situation, but am confused. Is the discussion in Archive 501 the one you have been referring to throughout this discussion or not? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Given the proposals below, I feel as though it would be good for an administrator or closer to weigh in and find the best way to close this. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Keeping the archive bot at bay until a closer can take a look at this. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:26, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430: On 30 July 2026, you edited Rickenbacker International Airport to make that article state that the only passenger service from that airport is seasonal Allegiant Air flights to Key West. This was spreading incorrect misinformation, which was contradicted by the collapsed Passenger Destinations Map immediately below that table. You did not cite any sources confirming that Key West was the only destination available to passengers flying from that airport. This sorry state persisted for over a month, until User:VenFlyer98 restored the information you removed, on 4 September 2026. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

And your point is? As has been made abundantly clear multiple times in this thread, removing sourced content is perfectly legitimate and explicitly permitted. I didn’t edit the map because, quite simply, the pushpin maps confuse me in how they work. The Key West route was the only sourced route which is why it remained. The fact is simple - the rest of the routes should never have been added in the first place without reliable sources verifying them. WP:TRUTH applies here. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you ignoring my point, or intentionally misunderstanding it, to goad me into disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate my point? I guess I'm looking for permission to get "pointy" with you, before I make any further attempts to illustrate my point. "New nonstop flight added from Columbus to Key West, Florida". is simply an Allegiant Travel Company announcement, repeated, probably without fact-checking, by the local NBC TV affiliate, that they added a new destination to their Rickenbacker service. It's kind of a "Wikipedia is not news" thing, that citation can't confirm whether the airline is still flying that route today, as airline service, as consensus on Wikipedia, can change. That citation certainly can't confirm that Allegiant's entire service from that airport consists of just that single destination. It would have been better to remove the entire §Airlines and destinations, rather to imply, in Wikipedia's voice, such limited service. At the least you could have put a This section is incomplete. Please help Wikipedia by expanding it hatnote on the section, but you did not do that. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

At this point I don't know what the point is you are trying to make - chastising me for forgetting a {{incomplete list}}, something I do often place but sometimes forget? I'm not trying to be awkward here, I just genuinely don't understand what the complaint is.

Your point about news articles not verifying the continued operation of routes is one that has been made repeatedly, and one I wholeheartedly agree with... however I have yet to find an alternative short of (sadly not oft available) route maps published by airlines or airports... many don't publish full route maps. I also wholeheartedly agree on the fact that these lists fail WP:NOT in multiple ways... however the most recent RfC on the topic at WP:VPP ended with No Consensus - so I'm not about to remove them from articles wholesale, as that would be stretching the definition of WP:BOLD to breaking point.

In terms of spreading incorrect misinformation - that flies right in the face of WP:V and WP:TRUTH - Wikipedia doesn't contain unsourced facts... it contains sourced facts. The routes without reliable sources were removed within policy, an action I've taken with tens of airport articles (if not hundreds at this point), and will continue to do. My stance is that unsourced content has no place on Wikipedia. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Back SOME sort of sanctions

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

---

Reywas has had a long history of unnecessary snarkiness, incivility, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that has stretched back years. He was temporarily blocked in March 2021 for uncivil remarks in automated edits, and in June 2022, he was exposed and later admitted to WP:HOUNDING an editor following a disagreement on a talk page that itself was littered with WP:PAs (see this particular reply that was later scrubbed). There are more incidents listed here (though in this case, the user he was against wasn't making strong points). They have also admitted to canvassing for AFD discussions, and nearly had his page mover rights revoked over movewarring in 2024. There's even a precedent to this situation from 2021, where Reywas was massreverting an editor also attempting to clean up unsourced and outdated info on airport articles against the spirit of WP:BURDEN and WP:OR. And that's what's been on ANI; I've seen this user do much more on various article and user talk pages.

It's clear that Reywas clearly on his two decades on this project has had chronic issues relating to WP:OWNERSHIP and incivility that has spilled out multiple times into often sustained harassment and PAs against other editors. He's reminding my of Joseph2302, who was only able to evade this via making apologies of questionable authenticity once it seemed like there would be a genuine consequence (this was essentially the only reason he got away with the CANVASSING and page-mover abuse). It's clear that there need to be SOME sort of sanctions on this user after having so much WP:ROPE and good faith be extended towards him for years now despite continuing to maintain the fundamentally same behavior. Personally support block of some substantial length (week+ at least). — Knightoftheswords 19:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support temporary block grapesurgeon (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose temporary block, support topic bans from airlines and airports, broadly construed.
  A temporary block won't do anything, as they'll just wait it out and return to their previous behavior. However, while some of their disruption goes beyond the scope of the proposed topic ban, a lot of it appears to be within scope - perhaps removing them from the topic area will be sufficient to curtail disruption, and once they have proven they can edict productively and civilly elsewhere they may appeal and return. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be ok with this too. Temp blocks add up though, I'll note; once they accumulate enough it'll make for an easy case for perma block. But in this case you may be right abt topic block being more effective grapesurgeon (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. If there is no attempt towards prevention, then a temporary block isn't the right sanction or restriction. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban for Reywas92 from airports and airlines, broadly construed. If sourcing is truly "trivially easy to find" then that's a reason for Reywas92 to properly cite the sources, not to leave it to the next editor to figure out. There's already far too much of a "Fuck it, it's true, source it yourself," attitude in this topic area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• A topic ban may well make sense here… they’re continuing to edit and haven’t once acknowledged the numerous editors in this thread that their approach is, quite simply, incorrect. My only concern is, is a topic ban just exporting the issue? Obviously my preference would be for them to recognise the issues with their editing… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support temporary block XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Airports/Airplanes, broadly construed. Airports are a notorious area that seems to attract bad behavior and problematic WP:LOCALCON. I understand some people's concerns that this may just lead to troublesome editing but we can afford a bit of WP:ROPE here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • On August 23 I reverted Danners 430 at Katowice Airport, Birmingham Airport, Zayed International Airport, and Addis Ababa Bole International Airport – in all cases I restored routes that Danners430 had removed for being unsourced or inadequately sourced, and I also added sources that ensured all content was verified. I again recognize and apologize for my comments to Danners430 regarding my disagreement with how he has removed such undersourced content, which I discussed with him on a couple talk pages to ensure the content is both complete and verified, but there is simply not a record of my adding unverifiable content or a wider issue on these pages. I have also already agreed not to revert any more edits of Danner430's and to continue to only add or restore content with sources and civility. These edits were also only regarding destination tables on airport articles, so a topic ban, particularly a broad one, is unnecessary to ensure appropriate editing on my part going forward and I will not be using any rope. Reywas92^Talk 23:14, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    I took a look at the first of the August 23 edits that you point to as "add[ing] sources".

    In this edit to Katowice Airport, you added the reference https://www.lot.com to support a route. This is the home page for a booking website and contains no information about routes. You added the reference https://www.pasazer.com to support a route. Again, this is a booking home page with no route information. You added the reference https://www.ryanair.com to support eleven routes. This is again the home page of a booking site and contains no information about routes.

    Can you explain this? Am I misinterpreting something, or did you make a series of mistakes in this edit, or is this really what you consider to be "adding sources"? CodeTalker (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

    Those was part of the revert, they were previously there and I've acknowledged that a portion of the edit restored some suboptimal sources along with the routes. But you can see at the top I did also add additional new sources https://www.katowice-airport.com/en/for-passengers/network-map and https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-katowice-ktw which ensured that restored content in the table was sourced and verifiable. I should have checked the other items more closely, and I already replaced the Ryanair source with https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/lp/timetable?originIata=KTW last week (though the Ryanair homepage does actually verify its destinations once Katowice is selected in the "From" box, as it then populates the "To" field with all of its destinations from there). I should have also modified the other link to https://www.lot.com/us/en/explore/inspirations/route-map for LOT and https://www.pasazer.com/news/466964/oficjalnie,lufthansa,cargo,w,katowicach.html for Pasazer (it did note the correct title "Lufthansa Cargo w Katowicach" but had the wrong URL), and I've completed that now. — Reywas92^Talk 03:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

    @Reywas92 A source URL must directly verify the information; a reader should not have to click around more and enter "Katowice" in the "From" box. That is not a valid reference. David10244 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

    Where in WP:RS is this rule specified? I have regularly seen citations to databases that require lots of navigation from a reader, such as New Zealand geographical statistical information that doesn't have direct urls. Katzrockso (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

    So the reference I added for Ryanair prefills Katowice, so it doesn't require additional searching. But that's still not true, nothing says a URL must immediately show it to you in a single click from the reference list. Plenty of perfectly valid online sources may require you to log in, click to a particular page, or access a database. Heck, you're perfectly allowed to use sources that aren't even available online because it's a book, video, or something else that's not a specific URL. "Directly" means that you don't have to synthesize information that's not available in the reference anywhere at all, not that a particular link must exist or else it's no longer reliable or usable. The information certainly may be embedded in an interactive place on the page, but the source still directly supports the fact that they fly from Katowice to Dublin without additional synthesis. — Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for my lack of response here, I was checking edits to this page via popups looking for the original header and did not realize there was a subsection. This is not necessary. These reports were numerous years ago and unrelated to this and resolved without issue. I have made many other productive edits to airport and airline articles, and I'm sorry I've gotten frustrated with Danners and made tendentious comments about his edits. As I said above, he's done a lot of good, but I disagreed with implementation in some cases while acknowleging a few of my reverts restored suboptimal sources. There has not been an issue of disrupting airline or airport articles broadly, but specific to certain edits relating to Danners' edits. I do believe that even if it's nominally permitted to remove unsourced information, there are less heavy-handed ways to conduct clean-up than doing so at scale, but I recognize that my reverts and edit summaries were not productive and apologize to Danners, particularly for the comment that he was not being useful. I will refrain from reverting Danners430's edits or directing comments toward him or other users, and I will of course ensure my contributions are fully sourced, which has been my intention in these articles as I've added both specific and general souces to airport pages (often in response to Danners430's cleanup), as I do not in fact just want to leave it all to the next editor. Reywas92^Talk 20:45, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support temporary block Pretty clear pattern of incivility long after the user was warned many, many times to stop over a period of multiple years. Regardless of the specifics of the content disputes, this is not the way to go about it. And constructive but uncivil users should not become "unblockables" who drive people away from Wikipedia. While it may not "prevent anything", it is far less easy to gloss over if the user continues to be uncivil in the future and the past history of blocks for similar reasons comes up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose block as that would, especially at this point, be functionally punitive. No opinion on a topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. The main issue here appears to be incivility in edit summaries, so that is what any sanction should seek to address. Knightoftheswords' examples demonstrate some past problematic behaviours, none of which specifically relate to aviation content. I have seen many recent contributions by Reywas92 in the topic area that appear constructive, including identifying reliable sources in a number of AfDs 1, 2, 3.
  Despite strong opinions on primary sources and destination tables in airport articles, there is documented consensus for their inclusion. Rey was a significant constructive contributor to the most recent RfC. An RSN discussion that specifically confirms consensus that booking engines are WP:SYNTH, which seems to be at the core of this dispute, still hasn't been located. Without it a topic ban seems unwarranted. The actual issue appears to be how they handled a disagreement with Danners, allowing a content dispute to escalate to incivility, rather than Reywas deliberately disrupting the topic area. Dfadden (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose block/ban, support warning per Dfadden, and per Reywas saying "...I recognize that my reverts and edit summaries were not productive and apologize to Danners, particularly for the comment that he was not being useful. I will refrain from reverting Danners430's edits or directing comments toward him or other users, and I will of course ensure my contributions are fully sourced..." This report raised valid concerns, but if there apparently hasn't been any reported disruption since 2023, and given Reywas's statement, I don't think any sanction beyond a warning is needed to prevent disruption here. Levivich (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Forgive me for not reading all of the above, but where do you get "if there apparently hasn't been any reported disruption since 2023" from? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Levivich I too would be interested to hear the reasoning for the above. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Danners430: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#Tools abuse is from 2023. Levivich (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, no opinion on block. I didn't see any evidence that the disruptive behavior was specific to the topic area in a way that this sanction would curtail the disruption.Katzrockso (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any actions right now, specifically in response to Reywas92's comment above. He acknowledges the legitimate concerns brought here and is open to reaching an agreement toward resolution. I'd support giving Reywas a chance to follow through on that. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Topic Ban from XfD: Randy Kryn

I don't want to be here. That's part of why I'm proposing a topic ban rather than a project space ban for which I think there may be merit. Randy Kryn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history-unfortunately within the last year or so it has become a long, disruptive history.

• In their own words: Maybe a better understanding of what to delete and how sources enter into the picture would be a good route before further AfDs, Unfortunately, the exact same argument could be made for Randy's participation in XfDs. It's not that they're an inclusionist, it's that they're inclusionism is by and large not based in policy. Some recent examples:

• a deliberate misportrayal of WP:SUSTAINED at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado State Capitol portrait of Donald Trump.
• his one has been through the wringer several times already and survived the trip when referring to an article that has been deleted and recreated, which is a strange definition of "and survived"
• as the only song with its own page from 1776, further meets notability. and and that your first three links are to essays, which are commentary and have nothing to do with deciding issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sit Down, John
• Keep, meets GNG, and meets keep criteria for an artwork. The artwork, which will be permanently displayed, was created 11 days ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/108 metres Mithila's Ramayana painting without any evidence as to how it meets keep criteria or even what those might be.

These are all from the last month. Editor energy is a dwindling, valuable resource and while you can make a case for ignore the contrarian, you can't when Randy just digs in and digs deep. My opinion is its time to for them to spend their energy elsewhere on the project. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 00:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have done nothing against guidelines or policy. Star Mississippi. As for your interest in my thought process, it would been nice to discuss these things on my talk page to get that understanding (isn't that how this process is supposed to work?). By "surviving", I meant that the page had been deleted twice but then an editor brought it back with sources that meet GNG. I explained exactly this at the discussion, if you had read a bit more. The sustained coverage at the Trump artwork was discovered after the AfD was started, the source added, and sustained coverage proven. The page discussion at "Sit Down, John" ended as a keep, hopefully per some of my points. The Ramayana painting is well sourced, as I pointed out. The concern was that it was too new and hadn't yet met sustained (the paint wasn't even dry on it), but it is certainly a unique artwork as it portrays the entire religious work in 51 panels. Please, exactly what are you really talking about, with actual substance (which should have been determined at my talk page)? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what's disruptive or against policy here:

• In the AfD on the Trump portrait (created in 2019), there was coverage posted in 2019, 2024, 2025, and 2026. I don't see how arguing that meets WP:SUSTAINED is a misrepresentation of WP:SUSTAINED.
• Describing an article that was deleted and recreated multiple times as having "survived" isn't a problem in my eyes. That's a normal use of the word "survived," as in "survived deletion."
• Quoting only "as the only song with its own page from 1776" from the Sit Down, John AfD is a misquote, since the full quote is "meets GNG per discussion and, as the only song with its own page from 1776, further meets notability." And, indeed, by the time Randy posted that, the discussion did show it met GNG, which was the ultimate consensus. Arguing WP:JUSTANESSAY might be unconvincing but it's not against any policy or disruptive.
• On the 108-meter painting, I don't understand why you say "without any evidence as to how it meets keep criteria or even what those might be" when he said "meets GNG" and there are over a dozen sources in the article. While I think it's better to specifically identify WP:THREE, that's not required by any policy, and one such instance is not sanction-worthy.

Based on this evidence, oppose any warning or sanction. Levivich (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2026 (UTC) Switching to support based on new evidence provided below. Levivich (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe in the last item there Randy meant the painting was notable in and of itself, not just as Such records or events... which was the nomination. So a little bit of discussion there to clarify is hardly disruptive. Seen where an editor digs in and digs deep and none of these examples come even close. Oppose per Levivich. Oppose per Levivich before he started overthinking. Still don't see anything as here as disruption that would call for a topic ban. fiveby(zero)

I agree with Levivich's assessment. Just because you disagree with someone or find their position unconvincing, it's not disruption. There's too much policing going on of normal debate at the moment. Fences&Windows 15:35, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Levivich paints a very convincing picture for me, biases aside. I would oppose sanctions at this point given the lack of policy-based evidence that project disruption is or has occurred. Eoline 16:11, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Not going to participate much here as the community can decide and obviously respect that consensus but want to point @Levivich two points: survived deletion means consensus is to keep, not that it was recreated despite community consensus. My issue with the painting wasn't that Randy claimed it met GNNG but that he claimed artistic notability which he defined as... his own opinion vs. N:ARTIST. IMO neither of those is productive or policy based. Star Mississippi 12:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

"survived deletion" seems like he saw it was the third nomination, and didn't realize it had been deleted twice, since usually it means it survived and just got renominated. Seems like a simple mistake. And WP:ARTIST is met if the article was for the artist, their work in the permanent collection if a museum. Simple mistake, that doesn't apply to the artwork itself. There should be a guideline for notable artwork somewhere, but I don't see it. Dream Focus 20:50, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I've no strong feelings here regarding sanctions but I have encountered this user before and felt like their contributions to an AfD were disruptive, for an editor of long standing their responses seemed sarcastic and I came away wondering if I was being trolled. Orange sticker (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  I see now that I brought this up at the time on @Star Mississippi's talk page that I was concerned @Randy Kryn was being facetious to myself and other editors. I do feel they have a pattern of disruptive editing or else this is a WP:CIR issue. Orange sticker (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  Hello Orange sticker, note that the AfD you linked to ended as no consensus. This discussion seems worded to give editors the impression t hat I'm a regular at AfD. I'm not, and participate in an extremely small percentage of AfD nominations when you realize there are dozens every day. The only way I know of one is if it shows up on my watchlist or on the visual arts listings. Then I'll often, but not always, have a look at it, and many are already well on their way to being saved or deleted, and I usually agree with the direction and don't participate. However, with some others, if I feel they should be kept, I'll opine, and hopefully you agree that every nomination has an obvious right to be opposed. On another topic, since I'm here, I wish Dicklyon would come back and play, he's shown no indication of doing so as far as I know. Orange sticker, if you feel those things again please ask me on my talk page to explain my language and reasoning, thanks, and thanks for the ping. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• I was one of the main people processing merge requests before it was folded into AfD, and I noticed this sort of thing there as well. The worst example was at Talk:50–50 club (baseball)#Merge proposal where he made a variety of questionable arguments, and then after it was closed, he went to the closer's talk page and asked the closer to reopen by reiterating the same arguments and then by saying that fans of the sport should be given more time to find the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose you might disagree with some of them, and consensus might wind up against them, but none of them appear to be disruptive or bad faith. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Disruptive is the difference between saying "Keep - I have linked Source X, Source Y and Source Z, proving it meets GNG", and saying "Keep - Obviously it's notable. If this isn't notable, nothing is notable." (Blatant OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:33, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that it's shoddy reasoning. The question is is it disruptive? I'd say no. I'd also say it's not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, it's a WP:NABOB argument that's not stating its policy. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing the difference between someone saying "Keep, meets GNG," relying on the sources already in the article without enumerating the sources, and someone saying "There are many, many, many examples of this user making keep votes against policy, against widespread consensus, and without a rational basis" while listing only 2 alleged examples, and "These and many more (which I can surely list if necessary)" without listing them. If it's OK for you say "I can surely list if necessary," then it should be OK for an AFD voter to refer generally to sources in the article without listing them out again. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support Tban There are many, many, many examples of this user making keep votes against policy, against widespread consensus, and without a rational basis. While having a personal opinion is fine, we generally expect the user to back it up with proof. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Douglas (artist), the user listed the names of sources that may be trivial, without proof they are significant. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado State Capitol portrait of Donald Trump he did not even do that much, and criticized the nominator's quite valid argument about WP:SUSTAINED as against policy. These and many more (which I can surely list if necessary) suggest that there is a major WP:CIR or NOTHERE issue, and that he is either unaware of or unwilling to accept the rules of notability. That's not even getting into the mocking commentary that Star Mississippi has noted he has made alongside various !votes, dissuading people from nominating things for AfD is a net negative for Wikipedia, and nominators should not de facto be treated as "bad guys". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'd note that the first one includes apparently-notable offline sources, and per WP:OFFLINE and WP:Assume good faith sources are permissible regardless of their availability and accessibility, including to support a Keep rationale.

  I'd also note that the user does provide a valid reason why, under an interpretation of WP:SUSTAINED, it'd be met: "Right, this 2019 artwork's coverage was sustained throughout most of 2025. How many other 2010s paintings have articles reporting on them for many months in 2025 are being questioned for "sustained" in August 2026? Since you've asked Wikipedians to merge this page, that's a serious question." Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  The nom addresses this by saying "Can't check most references as they have no dates and ambiguous titles such as "The Daily Times"." This is ignored by Randy who outright states that there is SIGCOV with no evidence. He is asked this immediately afterwards, with Orange sticker saying "Can you post links or at least full references to those articles so we can judge if they are independent of the subject and constitute WP:SIGCOV?" Randy says "All I know is the same as anyone looking at the page.", indicating he did not actually check the refs and said they were significant coverage disingenuously. This is disruptive editing. It's true AGF is relevant with regards to offline sources, but saying one is unsure whether something is or isn't major, is different than making potentially misleading claims.

  I do admit that Randy's response about SUSTAINED was accurate... long after the fact... but the initial !vote rationale was ridiculous and purely disruptive. He should have noted it got coverage back in 2019 to begin with, not said something like that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Note that I was the editor who found the 2019 source and added it. If I was banned nobody would have looked for or found it. See how that works? How about linking maybe just 10 or 20 of the times I've saved a page with my comments or source discovery, to even out the focus on making a couple mistakes now and then. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's definitely possible you did a service to that particular discussion. However, I do not believe that "balances out" the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument you offered as your initial keep argument. That was out of line, and you should have waited until you had a source in hand you could use as proof. I understand there is a certain amount of urgency due to the "follow the leader" effect, but that does not mean that bluffing until you can find evidence is appropriate. It would've been fine if it was indeed a "mistake now and then", but it has been shown here numerous times that it is a massive pattern. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:30, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with this user's understanding of notability and their arguments at AFD, but in a disagreement with me about WP:MERGEREASON and WP:N at the Sanic AfD I observed they eventually disengaged from a discussion that was becoming fruitless and removed a reply to another editor that would have escalated it further. I found that conversation unproductive, but at least in that instance it didn't reflect a user who is WP:NOTHERE or intentionally disruptive. VRXCES (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  He is not necessarily uncivil, but nevertheless disruptive. Randy's vote in the Sanic afd was "Keep, this one has been through the wringer several times already and survived the trip. Easily meets GNG", when the nomination was for a merge, not a GNG deletion. Again, clear CIR problem, as he was either unable to understand the gist of the nomination or chose to ignore it and make an unrelated keep vote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:28, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I agree the vote was not helpful but also felt it was not disruptive. As the sheer number of "Keep per WP:GNG" votes in that discussion indicate, conflating AFM with AFD was not unique to that one user, although the resulting discussion did, in my opinion, reveal some uniquely odd views on WP:N, unless it's an egregious pattern I can't comment beyond this one instance. VRXCES (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  While it was not uncommon, Randy is an experienced, veteran editor with 340k edits, drastically more than me. There is a lot less of an excuse for getting something so tremendously confused. The other similar "meets GNG" vote without further elaboration was from an editor with sub-3k edits. I can buy that the new user wasn't aware of it, even though it's written in boldface in the nom. For a power user, it is a different story. He also doubled down on it a couple times when told the statement was nonsensical. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  That's fair. VRXCES (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Fair but leaning way towards unfair. Note that the wording "The other similar "meets GNG" vote without further elaboration was from an editor with sub-3k edits." skims around the fact that other experienced editors included 'Keep' statements. Fairness in language and balance should be a factor at ANI, this should not be a prosecution forum where telling half the story is acceptable, nor should the requirement that the nominator should first try to resolve the concern on the users talk page be ignored - a step which was not done in this discussion even though required. I'll not read this discussion again until Friday or unless specifically pinged. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Clarifying my "that's fair" was a shorthand acknowledging the explanation given above, not an endorsement of the nomination or outcome. VRXCES (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - Sigh....I understand why this was brought up at ANI, but I'm saddened it has come to this. I have seen Randy at various AfD's for years, and although we seldom ever agree on outcomes, I think he is a good guy, sincere, and respectful. There have been many times when I think his interpretations of notability criteria are lacking in rigor, which I've chalked up to the fact that he's been a long time editor and is probably used to looser notability standards of past years. I don't mean that to be a derogatory statement, but rather more of an observation. It seems that he almost always !votes Keep even if the sourcing is abysmal. I don't want to say it's a CIR issue, nor intentional disruption but maybe more of a matter of not keeping up with the times. Over the years, WP has become a venue for paid promotional editing, self-promotion, and free advertising. This, to my mind, is extremely problematic and is damaging to the credibility and integrity of the encyclopedia. I'm not comfortable suggesting that he be topic banned, but rather I think he needs to to take a long time-out to become more attentive to the quality of sources and to revisit the notability criteria. Native advertising, promotional content, advertorial sources mascaraing as editorial copy is rampant. Not everything belongs in WP, many lower quality articles that come thru AfD should actually be on personal websites or on social media. Netherzone (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy has already replied "Sorry, but I have done nothing against guidelines or policy", and does not believe he did anything incorrectly. It is clear that if this ends with a slap on the wrist, it will be business as usual, so it is rather unlikely he will "take a long time-out to become more attentive to the quality of sources". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Please don't imply you know what someone else means, and assert that you know what they will do in the future. Of course I've made mistakes, and if you haven't Zxcybnm then I salute you. But my recent work and cites (unlike from a few years past, as the commentator under this post discusses), which is the subject of this ANI thread, contains little that is truly incorrect. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Whoops, ping fix (I typed a "y" where a "v" should be. Zxcvbnm!) Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• All I can speak to is my experience with Randy from a few years ago, when I AfD'd a series of articles about minor family members of US presidents. Most ended up being kept by consensus, but I suspect (hope?) those administrative determinations did not give much weight to Randy's posts due to his repeated assertions of notability/significance without providing evidence. Here's one example. I don't have any more recent insights to share, but from the OP and comments like this it certainly sounds like that assertion issue still exists. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • That's a problem with ANI, picking and choosing examples and what and who to degrade or boost. From the same link you just gave (the other link is an opinion essay, not evidence or policy), you were on a deletion spree and you made mistakes, and if I were banned like a dog at the time I couldn't have done and written this: "Now I've returned Warren G. Harding's daughters page that you've deleted without discussion, one which was kept in a 2017 AfD." That would be the Elizabeth Ann Blaesing page, Blaes her soul. The only person who really knows their history here is the individual editor, and even though everyone makes mistakes, as you did there and I've done once in awhile, nobody ran to ANI to toss you into this arena. As for policy or guidelines, zxy, on percentage I've made some mistakes but have kept within the hash marks 98 percent of the time, and I can assure you that my overall record at AFD has improved the encyclopedia much more than harmed it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    • First off, textbook ad hominem response there. This is a thread about you, and your comment doesn't even try to justify your repeated AfD assertions of notability/significance. Back then, I legitimately begged you to provide sources that you believed contributed towards notability and you repeatedly ignored that.
    • ATA is indeed an essay, but I thought it would be helpful for your learning to read the extended material. This comment, particularly the bits in bold, explains how your !votes were still indeed against the letter and spirit of our deletion policy. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:05, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

    on percentage I've made some mistakes but have kept within the hash marks 98 percent of the time - am I understanding you correctly that you're saying your !votes are correct 98% of the time? The toolforge afdstats shows that your !votes align with the outcomes between 65% and 70% of the time. This stat seems fairly low for a regular at AfD. And while I don't attribute that to deliberate disruption, it does seem to imply that you are guided by your own interpretation of the notability criteria, or (I'm sorry to say) there are some competence issues. I think this can be improved if you are willing to become more rigorous in your understanding. I don't think AfD and deletions are a "bad thing", it's sort of like the recycling bin of the encyclopedia. But I do think keeping junk, promo or "too soon" articles lessens the credibility and integrity of the encyclopedia, and that is a "bad thing". Netherzone (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    I'm surprised to see someone describe 65-70% match as "fairly low." It's not realistic to expect people have match rates of 80% or 90%. That's just pile-on voting. Dissent is acceptable, even desirable. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    I !vote delete almost exclusively in AfDs that are trending toward NC or Keep (or where I feel the need to rebut a particular argument) and probably have pretty high match rates (it gives me anxiety to check my own stats, so I rarely do), so 80-90% is certainly achievable without being a pile-on !voter. JoelleJay (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

    65-70% is very solid, though, and using the % match as a short form for being incompetent or disruptive will disincentivize dissenting votes, which are very valuable. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    I disagree higher matches indicates "pile on" !voting, and also disagree that having higher match standards disincentivizes "dissenting" !votes. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    I agree that we shouldn't be married to the percentage; principled dissent can be good. But I think Randy's votes are too sloppy/often built on flat out incorrect understandings of policy, so it's hard for me to respect that dissent on those grounds. So to me the low percent is not an encouraging sign. grapesurgeon (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    I cannot conceive how 65% is "very solid" (and note that the actual match percent when not ignoring NC is 57%). A long history of anti-consensus !voting is problematic. JoelleJay (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per nomination. Obviously can/should be appealed in future. I've also noticed issues with Randy's votes pretty frequently. It's remarkable how much Randy participates and yet how much he gets wrong, and how difficult discussions with him become. Randy has also shown very little self-reflection in this thread. If we just close this without doing anything, literally nothing will change and we'll keep needing to put up with it for years. Take some kind of action rather than just putting it off. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean this way, I've been looking through their very recent participation in AfD and finding even more examples of editors unsuccessfully pleading with them to explain their reasoning: or just demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of WP:N:, everyone makes mistakes but this does seem to be a time consuming, chronic problem. Orange sticker (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

That is also rather problematic. In the first AfD, he states "These new merge "rules" seem to be making it way too easy to propose unneeded merges", which is somewhat nonsensical - WP:MERGEREASON has not changed, the merges were simply moved in venue. One could also previously propose as many merges as they wanted.

Stating that a basic museum listing is evidence of notability does imply total misunderstanding as Wikipedia is not a database. Which makes his constant statements that he did not do a single thing wrong highly concerning. Simply put, I strongly disagree with that assertion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

A 66% match rate is strong evidence that an editor is getting it right a supermajority of the time. Levivich (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to the quality of argumentation being poor. Randy pretty clearly misunderstands policy and then doubles down on it; that's something most people in this thread have agreed on so far. grapesurgeon (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that a person misunderstands policy when their understanding of policy matches consensus 66% of the time. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Weren't you cautioning against misinterpretation of stats earlier? I mean there were clear examples given in this thread of poor understanding of policy. Are we just supposed to go the opposite direction and blindly believe their understanding is good based on a 66% match rate?

Also a 66% match rate is really not much to write home about. These discussions functionally are binary possibilities, so random voting would result in (functionally) a 50% match rate. grapesurgeon (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

A 66% match rate combined with misunderstanding of policy, notability criteria, and source quality is not a hopeful combination for a regular at AfD. Netherzone (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, like two or three examples of misunderstanding of policy. AfD voting isn't like a final exam. 2 out of 3 is not a problem. Sub-50 is a problem. Levivich (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

No, you are misunderstanding this.

Reread what I wrote about binary choice. If you flipped a coin it would get a keep/delete vote right around 50% of the time. Getting less than 50% would be Randy somehow being worse than a coin flip; which would mean he understood policy and was actively going in the opposite direction of it. being no better than chance is not a compliment grapesurgeon (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Rewording to be clearer: mathematically, the floor is not 0%, it's basically 50%. If randy somehow got below 50%, it would mean he was probably trolling; he knew the right answers and was voting the opposite of them. Getting 50% means being as good as a random number generator. Getting above 50% means he's not trolling, which is good. But 66% is not all that much higher than 50%. So he's above the floor, but not by all that much grapesurgeon (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I think if an editor were misunderstanding policy a majority of the time, they'd match consensus worse than a coin flip. Anyway, there's not even a real correlation between understanding policy and voting with consensus -- a person can do one without the other. One can dissent about the application of policy while still perfectly understanding that policy. Conversely, one can vote "keep per X" on every AfD headed to a snow keep and have a 100% match rate without even having to read any policies. It's very easy to game AfD match rate (back to "lies, damn lies, and statistics").

A 66% match rate on its own doesn't prove anything, but if an editor were truly being disruptive and voting against policy on a regular basis, I would expect their match rate to be worse than a coin flip. They'd be mostly voting keep when the consensus is to delete, and mostly voting delete when the consensus is to keep, and they'd have a match rate of like 33% not 66%. 66% is probably lower than the average AfD regular, maybe 10-20% lower. It's an indication that most of the time, a supermajority of the time, they are not impeding consensus because they're with consensus. Therefore, a supermajority of the time, at least, they're not disrupting the consensus forming process.

And then the times that they are against consensus--1 out of 3--it doesn't mean they are misunderstanding policy or disrupting consensus. Sometimes, consensus is against you, and that's OK. That's not disruptive. When someone votes in 100 AfDs and says something stupid in two or three, or five or ten, of them, that's not a problem that needs solving. That's just human diversity: people will not always agree, and we shouldn't sanction people just because they said something we disagree with, even if they say something we disagree with multiple times, even if it's stupid.

For me, the case hasn't been made here that Randy is disruptive in any significant amount of AFDs. Yes, there are a handful of examples provided of bad vote rationales, but there are also as many examples of allegedly bad vote rationales that aren't actually bad (see, e.g., my first comment in this thread). Given their level of participation, and given their match stat is well above a coin flip, I'd need to see dozens of recent bad vote rationales to believe it's actually disruptive. Levivich (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Now I'm getting concerned with how you understand the mechanisms of Wikipedia and probability.

The policies of Wikipedia are there literally because they are correlated with good outcomes. If there was literally 0 correlation we'd know; it'd be extremely obvious because we'd be keeping and throwing out things literally like a coin flip. All kinds of COI articles being kept (ironically kind of like Randy was seen advocating for in this thread...). I'd be screaming louder than Randy about policies being absolutely useless if that was the case.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I've seen Randy around since I started editing Wikipedia, and I've not been impressed by their contributions to this area. More heat than light, and no momentum to improve. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

https://intersect-contribs.toolforge.org/index.php?project=enwiki&namespaceFilter=all&users%5B%5D=Randy+Kryn&users%5B%5D=Grapesurgeon&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&sort=0 Shows your interactions. Shows some interactions between you, but is limited, I search it for "deletion" and only see two entries, one of them currently open and you disagreeing with one another. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haresh Hingorani I don't see anyway to search all AFDs only. I need to see evidence, not just the claims of someone who doesn't like someone voting against them in an AFD they started. Dream Focus 04:32, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Why are you assuming that thread was what was motivating me lol. If I had more to say in that thread I would have spoken up.

Is it not possible that I've browsed AfD without voting myself?

If you are saying you don't trust me, then ok, fine. Being fair I can't really turn up evidence from threads I've read years ago. I don't remember them in specific. But the links in this thread are enough to jog my memory of what I've seen about Randy. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Your accounts are only four years old tho? Levivich (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Do I need to have an account as old as Randy's to have an opinion? I've seen enough to have one. We make judgments based on the recent state of editors, and 4 years is enough. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

No of course not. But your messages come across to me as suggesting you have superior knowledge and expertise due to your tenure, and that's an unusual framing when you're replying to people who have 2x or 5x or 40x more experience (depending on how you measure). I have also seen Randy around since I started editing, and Dream's seen Randy around since Randy started editing (19 years ago). So why would your personal anecdotal experience be any more valid than ours? To put it in perspective, according to afd stats, you've voted in 143 AfDs with a 75% match rate. Randy's match rate is only 9% lower than yours and he's voted in 729. I've voted in 472 with a 71.5% match rate. Dream has voted in 5,831 with an 81% match rate. You have the least experience of us, and you're saying Randy misunderstands policy, and that I misunderstand as well. What makes you think your understanding of policy is any better than anyone else's? How can you say that a 66% match rate is so poor as to merit sanctions or indicate a problem when yours is only 9% higher? You really think 9% is what separates "misunderstands policy" from "understands policy"?

PS: the policies are not there because they correlate with good outcomes, the policies define what is "good" on Wikipedia in the first place. Notability guidelines, in particular, do not lead to outcomes that many would call "good." They mirror the biases of publishers of reliable sources, which is necessary for Wikipedia, but is not exactly good (notability guidelines are like democracy: the worst system except for all the others), because the biases of RS are not good. That's why there are so many biographies of white men and so few about women of color, to take just one obvious example. But I digress. Levivich (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

due to your tenure ...I didn't know that I myself thought I was wizened and experienced, despite me saying to someone else I've always found these kinds of "appeal to seniority" arguments to be irrelevant.

You're right about us both having anecdotes and them being of equal weight. Never implied that I somehow had "seniority" over you?

How can you say that a 66% match rate is so poor as to merit sanctions or indicate a problem when yours is only 9% higher? You really think 9% is what separates "misunderstands policy" from "understands policy"?

No, and stop presenting my argument this way. Multiple times above I said that these stats are only bits of data. I agree that we shouldn't be married to the percentage; principled dissent can be good. But I think Randy's votes are too sloppy/often built on flat out incorrect understandings of policy, so it's hard for me to respect that dissent on those grounds. So to me the low percent is not an encouraging sign. Also when the difference is 9% and the floor is 50%, there's not much wiggle room.

I think Wikipedia policy in general is correlated with good outcomes, although I absolutely agree there are issues in them and we should continue pressing policy to be better about them and allow for principled exceptions.

My issues with Randy are highlighted above by others; he presents policy and says "this is what this policy is" and the interpretation of the policy is wrong. How can you possibly build good arguments on something you've misunderstood?

My description of your understanding of policy is based on my view of your understanding of statistics and the mechanics of Wikipedia. If you think there is literally 0% correlation between Wikipedia and good policy, you should just completely throw them out the door and never reference them again. Don't even reference guidance on spelling and grammar. They are utterly worthless if there is 0% correlation. If you genuinely believe that, I think either 1. your grasp of policy is not strong or 2. your understanding of statistics is not strong. There's no real other way around this. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Grapesurgeon, I've viewed hundreds of AfDs where I agreed with the trend already in progress (either delete or keep) and don't comment. Throwing percentages around as if they meant anything without taking that into account, that if I voted on every ongoing AfD I agreed with my percentage would soar to over 80% or much more, creates a distorted view of Wikipedia statistical understanding (in other words, to coin a phrase, AfD is like a box of chocolates...) Randy Kryn (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that much I can agree on, as I've said here . The percent alone is not useful information. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Afdstats is a very crude tool. It only measures how much someone is in tune with the crowd. On one hand you can have an editor who is !voting with the crowd and only in AFDs where there is going to be an obvious outcome and acheiving a match rate in the 90s. On the other you could have an editor who has participated very broadly, including in a lot of marginal cases and who doesn't follow the crowd, getting a match rate of 50-60%. For these sorts of discussions I think diffs matter. Personally I'd like to see more before swinging an axe. TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Bingo. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:02, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Support tban, sadly. The misinterpretation of WP:SUSTAINED as described above is a prime example of this editor's misinterpretation of policy. Additionally, their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananta Mandal (3rd nomination) are concerning too - in particular that the nominator's voice should weigh more at an AFD than anyone else's. A topic ban should be imposed not to punish RK, but instead to give them an opportunity to actually read the policy and ask questions on its interpretation. Once RK has demonstrated a better knowledge of policies and expectations, I would be more than willing to give him a second chance. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:36, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Please, at least be fair. The nominator at the Ananta Mandal withdrew their nom because they, and many others, recognized that the page met GNG, which is a pretty good indication that even the nominator had been convinced by source analysis. These ANI pile-ons lack the essence of a courtroom while mimicking one, with judgments passed on incorrect analysis of the claims, new people chiming in without understanding how the accused actually participates, and no allowance for the accused to call witnesses (a few of the AfD regulars who are missing here). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I am retracting my support for a TBAN per others' comments, in favor of a warning or other lesser sanction. RK's conduct since I wrote this indicates they are willing to listen to the advice they are given. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Support tban, with sadness because was hoping that Randy would agree to take a time out to study up on policy, guidelines, notability criteria, and develop more of an understanding of quality of sourcing. Being reminded of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananta Mandal (3rd nomination) by Gommeh and the other diffs brought here clarified that Randy should not be participating in AfDs. A block or ban is never punitive, but rather preventative, and I sincerely hope the time-out will help him understand how his participation can be viewed as disruptive to process by some, and may even sway some lesser experienced editors to "pile on" with unsupported keeps. There are many other areas where Randy can contribute productively to the encyclopedia, tho, so I hope a tban from AfD does not discourage him. Netherzone (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

et tu Netherzone. Please reread the Ananta Mandal thread again, something I hope the closer here will do. Even the nominator withdrew their nomination. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The nominator for that AfD was inexperienced and has since been blocked for abuse of Wikipedia. A more experienced editor would know about WP:TIMESOFINDIA and not folded so quickly the moment someone started listing grandiose-looking accolades. So... I don't think that means much of anything really. The withdrawal seems like a premature attempt to save face following what (in their eyes) seemed like a takedown of their nomination but an experienced editor would have seen through as very iffy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:01, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I am retracting my support for a Tban, and think a formal warning is more appropriate as Randy has agreed to abide by the advise given in this ANI. (For some reason I'm having trouble striking my support comment, my computer screen keeps freezing when I try to do it - maybe because the thread is so long?)Netherzone (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Randy Kryn is a user with 341,745 edits, with an created on 5 July 2007. Are these the only examples you can find for someone who made that many edits over such a long time? I don't see any problems here. Does anyone who didn't disagree with him in an AFD, see any problems with his edits warranting him being blocked from participating in future AFDs? Dream Focus 20:59, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy Kryn is a user with 341,745 edits, with an created on 5 July 2007 I've always found these kinds of "appeal to seniority" arguments to be irrelevant. If anything, having a poor understanding of major parts of Wikipedia policy despite having such a long record is more of a black mark. Also, Randy has often pushed conversations unpleasant, as seen in discussions linked above; disruptive behavior can drive away other productive users. I'm ok with sidelining Randy for a while to let others breathe. Randy is probably committed to the site anyway and can likely successfully appeal the block in short order after reflecting on why it happened. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I was not trying any kind of "appeal to seniority" argument. I was asking for more examples, my next sentence quite clear on that. Dream Focus 21:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Then my next sentence If anything, having a poor understanding of major parts of Wikipedia policy despite having such a long record is more of a black mark applies to your argument regardless grapesurgeon (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus, these are not the only examples. I've seen RK around for many years at AfD, and have often been perplexed by the lack of rigor and understanding of notability criteria. I haven't brought it to the attention of admins, because I do not have the time in real life to do so and it seemed more like cluelessness than any sort of bad faith disruption. I also reiterate that I think Randy is a nice person who means well, but does not understand current P&G. Unfortunately his misunderstanding has, on occasion been disruptive to the community and to process even tho I overlooked it for a long time. After over a third-of-a-million edits, I think he has had adequate time to wrap his head around what constitutes sustained significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. I think his efforts here can be more productive directed elsewhere on the encyclopedia rather than at AfD. Netherzone (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Concur ~ this is a case where desks should be reassigned, with perhaps continued workshopping on methods to curtail this in the future.
    Augmented Seventh (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support Tban - The record can be perused here. The user fails to correctly assess WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV, specifically (as others have pointed out) failing to take the time to distinguish native advertising, promotional content, and advertorial sources from actual significant coverage. I believe that their actions do drive away other productive users. As grapesurgeon states Randy Kryn pretty clearly misunderstands policy and then doubles down on it. Specifically, the notion that "surviving" a previous AfD, (even by no consensus) somehow alleviates any WP:BURDEN of showing notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. That sounds like pure negativity on the topic. They desperately need to spread their energy on some other topic where they won't cause any harm. Hopefully it'll help out. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 08:51, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Editor energy is a dwindling, valuable resource... (*suppressing uproarious laughter*) One could literally spend weeks pointing out all the content that's either been consistently ignored for years on end or allowed to be scaled back under color of WP:HERE, all the while this thread provides yet another example of a shit-ton of editor energy expended on more siloed micro-discussion about ultimately unimportant matters. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:00, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

RadioKAOS this comment is nothing but condescension and ironically more useless than everything you've been complaining about. Don't do this. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Support, my opinion is largely aligned with Netherzone's. I've been deeply unimpressed with Randy's understanding of notability and sourcing.
@Levivich There are numerous other recent examples of non-policy-based !votes:

• 27 July 2026: Keep, pretty obvious that this is a notable work of art in both subject and ownership, and is the US House of Representatives official portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Will see if this snows before commenting further, thanks. followed up with a claim that simple catalog listings are sufficient for conferring notability.
• 20 July 2026: Oppose, the painting exists, it is exhibited at the U.S. Capitol, and editors thought enough of it to write an article. The article itself seems well sourced as to its place in the building and United States Capitol art collection. Not seeing anything broken here. "Well-sourced as to its place in the building" is presumably referring to the databases that list the painting, which obviously do not count towards GNG. This was closed with the explicit note that The one opinion in opposition makes no arguments based in our policies and guidelines.
• 18 July 2026 Keep, she has worked on many projects and television shows, so her notability doesn't focus on one show that she both created and was fired from. Merging is often deletion by another name, and Vickerman seems too notable to merge into just one of her accomplishments. He does not respond to the two replies asking how she actually meets notability criteria.
• 13 June 2026 Keep, meets GNG. The subject is a unique and talented individual well covered in the media. Uhooep, you mentioned two articles with one not listed in the article, can you please either add it to the page or list it here, thanks. As mentioned in the nom, the two identified articles are from the same source so obviously do not satisfy GNG, but Randy repeats the claim that the subject meets GNG in two (CIR?) responses to merge !votes: This isn't a merge discussion, it is a page about a notable individual who is much more than a "case" who meets GNG. Thanks. and A concern here, PamD and WomenArtistUpdates is that this person has their own independent GNG based sources...
• 31 May 2026: Oppose, notability on Wikipedia does not fade over time. A notable topic of an iconic television character. This !vote (the first at the AfD) makes no sense in the context of the nomination (I propose redirecting to The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. because the character does not demonstrate any notability independent of his titular show. The content here is just the overall plot summary and concept of the show. The sources that are not simply episodes of the series are coverage/reviews of the show as a whole which are already included in the reception section of the main show article....) and Randy did not respond to the nom's reply (My nomination is predicated on the idea that the character was never notable beyond the general notability of the show, and there are no adequate sources to demonstrate any notability. Do you have any reliable sources showing that the character is a notable, iconic television character to provide?).
• 14 May 2026: Keep per Gildir, consistency with the other branches of the United States military. Even though the two entries were created before the actual naming (one co-written by Robert A. Heinlein, who was no slouch for knowing the eventual direction of events and societal norms) , they do use the name. The referenced !vote was Keep as article creator. I created it on the assumption that more such notable films would appear over time, and that for consistency every branch of the U.S. military should have an equivalent list, even if some of them are very small. The nomination statement was: It is anachronistic and WP:SYNTH to associate the real-life United States Space Force with two sci-fi movies released over 60 years prior to its establishment.
• 26 April 2026: Keep "Robert Anton Wilson fandom" is as much of a topic as Star Trek fandom, etc. Why choose one type of "fandom" to delete while leaving others? Thanks. Also see the popular culture section showing that this term has been used by various music groups, etc. In response to an editor clarifying to be more policy-based--there's a lack of secondary sources. I don't think the fact that two or three (depending how you count) bands have named songs or albums after this slogan from Illuminatus establishes notability., Randy states This topic is also used in video gaming and not just musical realms. Wilson and Shea have created many memes, sayings, etc., individually and together, and this is a legitimate topic area.

I'll also note that Randy's participation in topics related to Robert Anton Wilson has been a significant drain on editor time in the past, not least because of a steadfast refusal to understand/accept policy requirements and arbitration on pseudoscience sourcing, secondariness, and non-independence.

• December 2025–January 2026: Keep, noting unusual or out of place here, the Wikipedia visual arts collection includes statues of all kinds. This one in particular has a long history of intent, and its creation by governmental decree is notable by itself, as is the subject. Nothing broken here. and, stunningly, This is an artwork, sustainability is present in the day-by-day existence of the work in the public square.

None of these were even the AfDs I had in mind to use as examples. JoelleJay (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging @Dream Focus JoelleJay (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

With Lorrain Mercer, he said Keep, meets GNG. The subject is a unique and talented individual well covered in the media.

If he clicked the link to search for reliable sources, he would've found some results that seem convincing. Searching for "Lorraine Mercer" "Thalidomide" in a Google reliable sources search shows articles about her years apart. Looking the article at the time mentions she was chosen as the bearer of the Olympic Torch in 2012, and a reference is to an article mentioning she was honoured by the Queen of England. Instead of saying she meets GNG, he should've linked to news coverage not mentioned in the article. Or mentioned WP:ANYBIO as a reason to keep the article. Article short enough, merger was a valid option also.

Someone could've just said in the discussion you need to list all news articles you believe count as significant coverage. Anyway, as long as he is more careful in the future, I see no problems here.

That's the only case listed I clicked on so far. Dream Focus 21:09, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Joelle Jay, in a perfect ANI universe a closer would read each of those AFDs to gather the contexts. The focus on visual arts is because that's where I find out about AFDs, that or my watch list, and in most painting and statue articles there is little evidence of sustained activity because people don't write feature articles about a painting year after year, that's not the nature of artwork coverage (Johnbod is one of our art experts on when such articles are kept or deleted). As for Robert Anton Wilson, bless his soul, legacy, and flying lasagna, the article you point to proved, as it should be, a notable topic. The time sinks you speak of are caused by individuals wanting to delete adequate pages, not by those who have a right to defend them. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Additional context does not make your AfD arguments look more sound. I don't know what further information would support assertions of GNG based on plainly insufficient sourcing.

Your version of the eight-circuit article had 11000+ bytes of FRINGE-sourced pseudoscientific content that you kept trying to reintroduce despite the reversions by multiple other editors, and which fortunately has remained excised for 3 years. The situation was you and a now-indeffed disruptive editor interfering with a consensus of numerous individuals wanting to delete inadequate content. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, JJ, those examples have completely changed my mind. Sorry, Randy, but those keep-because-it-exists votes are disruptive, and apparently continuous. You have to actually apply WP:N when you vote, not just any rationale you find persuasive, but WP:N in particular. Levivich (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any action (brought here by the ping above). Randy is a very energetic editor, who mostly edits in the area of visual arts, like me, so I see a lot of his work. He certainly leans inclusionist, and is thus often placed as the defence attorney, and like many of them in real life, he sometimes stretches his arguments. The supporters here, on the other hand, are from the much larger class of Afd prosecutors. I could wish Randy more often took apart their often very weak arguments in a forensic analysis on applicable policy, rather than brief assertions of notability. They find him annoying, but he is fulfilling an essential role - one I don't have the time or energy to do myself these days. I wish we had more like him. I don't always agree with him by any means, but probably do more often than not. Levivich's points above are good. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  With regards to at least the first point Levivich made, Randy did not argue that it got coverage in 2019. He stated that the painting was MADE in 2019, which is different. Someone else found the 2019 article and brought that into the discussion. It's a misrepresentation to say that he was "right" when he accidentally ended up with the correct argument in the end by virtue of someone else's far more comprehensive search for sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:06, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  Now lies are okay? I found the 2019 source. by virtue of someone else's far more comprehensive search for sources., that someone else was me, z. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies, I erred in saying that it was not your source. However, my statement about the initial argument not being based on any sources still applies. You stated, "Oaktree b, your wish is my command (at least this once)" and went to find the source after being called out as you made your initial argument not bringing up sources numerous hours earlier. I think calling it a "lie" is not WP:AGF though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:32, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any action. Randy is an awesome and energetic editor. I didn't know he specialised in visual arts, but he appears on my watchlist for all sorts (e.g. recently copy editing an article created by myself - pledge and review - for better policy compliance.) Never seen an edit from Randy that didn't seem like an improvement for the reader. I'd prefer we'd not risk discouraging him from further participation. This said, there may be a "too much of a good thing" effect in play here. I'd suggest Randy may want to consider either reducing the frequency of XfD voting, or switch to the more considered style his critics seem to prefer (e.g. actually specifying/linking to sources that demonstrate coverage rather than just asserting a topic is notable, etc.) To clarify, IMO Randy's casual style is optimal both from a reader best interests and a holistic community wellbeing perspective. I usually try to comment at AfD in similar fashion, e.g. "Keep - notable X - nothing gained by destroying the article". A style I copied from the DreamFocus when I first arrived back in 2008, always seen Dream as a great model to emulate. Wiki-archaeology shows that was the dominant AfD style for Wikipedias first few years, and I've never seen a reason to deviate from it. But I keep my AfD participation quite limited partly as I sense it might be annoying to some of the more serious editors if I was voting like that too often. Lastly, I note that Dream himself has started voting in a more thoughtful way compared to his 2008 style, maybe there's a case for being less casual that we're not seeing, beyond just reducing the chances of further drama like this ANI. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would have been more accurate to say that because I mostly edit on art, that's where I usually see his edits. I know he has other areas of interest. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you Johnbod and FeydHuxtable. I don't know when casual conversation went out of style at AfD. To you in particular, who I've worked alongside with for many years, would like to point out that not one of these users who want me to leave AfD, and are now using lies to make their points (okay, it was a stupid mistake on z's part to praise the person who brought the 2019 cite, which was me), and, even the nominator!, have ever come to my talk page to voice their concern. Much is focused above on my comments on trying to save Abraham Lincoln (Billinger) by pointing out that this is the U.S. House of Representatives official portrait of one of their most esteemed members, maybe not officially a comment sanctioned by strict guideline rules but....and here's why this nomination should be withdrawn...the policy WP:IAR allows people to discuss and even vote by ignoring the formal guidelines when rare exceptions, like the Lincoln portrait, are debated. WP:COMMONSENSE is another thing being ignored, when Abraham Lincoln, sanctioned by the House of Representatives and curated by the Archivist, can be deleted without allowing someone to opine on commonsense. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

    Hard to pinpoint exactly when the fashion changed, but for me it hit home in 2012, when Dream himself asked me to clarify how my casual keep vote was based in policy. Would agree in the generally case it would have been more collegial & time efficient to raise the matter on your talk page prior to an ANI, though I'd guess Star had good reasons for not doing that in this case. Also fully agree on Lincoln. Abe sometimes ranks no 1 of all time leaders not just for the US, but for the whole world. Perfect IAR text-book example for his official portrait to warrant an article regardless of coverage. Sadly others dont see it the way we do. It's often said "policy reflects practice" from which it follows it's fine to occasionally vote from commonsense views that arent fully policy aligned. Again though, IMO it risks drama if the same editor essentially relies on WP:IAR too often. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN the evidence from quite a few users here makes it clear, this editor has a poor understanding of our notability guidelines which he proceeds to act on with great confidence, thus harming the quality of the debate. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Evidence, yes, but pick-and-choose biased evidence from editors who've spent lots of energy here to convict me of having opinions. As I said above, not one of these users has ever come to my talk page to focus on any of these concerns. The nominator didn't even discuss this nom with me, as required in the rules regarding nominations (non-admins can be excused for not taking that step, but should be followed every time for administrators like Star Mississippi who know how this process works, discussion on the talk page always precedes a nomination, as should formal dispute resolution, and I would ask Star to withdraw this nom because of the lack of either dispute resolution or talk page discussion. If we are going to treat ANI as a psuedo-courtroom where major decisions are handed down which effect the future well being of the encyclopedia, preliminary steps should be fully followed by experienced administrators). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
    • Repinging Star Mississippi, as I messed up the ping by editing the above. But you know reasons and solutions for ANI nominations should first be discussed on the users talk page. And neither you nor anyone else here have done so in the past or before this present ANI arena was thrown open. For that alone this should be tossed out with both the baby and bathwater and started over or, better yet....a talk page discussion before starting it over? This hole in the process itself creates major drama, which is what people complain happens here, and should have been the step you took before starting this discussion. Make sense? and if not, why not? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

    Even I can come up with language to warn such a user as me. A final warning on my talk page (or, how about any warning) that "If you continue opining or adding commonsense opinions on AfD you will be brought up on ANI and, Randy, in good faith, let's discuss this so we can work out what the difference between a comment or ivote on an AfD is experienced as by other editors and what is actually allowed there so it's clear to both of us, thanks Randy". That's the route Star, not the way you went about this. Why do I have to explain that to an experienced administrator? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

    Apologies for the delay @Randy Kryn as I have been traveling. I don't believe your wikilawyering and outrage here is genuine, and nor do I wish to engage which I noted in my initial response. But I will note there is absolutely no requirement to discuss it with the person, just to notify which I did. The reason why I chose not to is patently clear from this thread. Should you wish to have me sanctioned for the nominator didn't even discuss this nom with me, as required in the rules regarding nominations (non-admins can be excused for not taking that step, you're more than welcome. Star Mississippi 16:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Star Mississippi, of course I don't want you sanctioned, if you knew me at all you'd know that's not my thing except for once in a very extreme situation. Talking out problems on the users talk page should be a normal part of ANI, it just should be. As for "I don't believe your...is genuine", a polite way of calling me a liar, is not very nice or accurate. Without going into details, my adherence and dedication to truth is an important factor in other areas of my life. Thanks for the answer though, and one benefit that may come from this is an essay about working things out on users talk pages before opening such an ANI thread (inspired by a suggestion by Clovermoss). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that Randy rarely, if ever, has tried to sanction anyone, even those that he is engaged in close, protracted disputes with, and it's one of the reasons I opposed a XfD restriction. Randy, I do think that some people have trouble understanding your communication methods (myself included), and while I have never once got the impression that you were lying, it might help to directly engage with what people are saying to avoid that misinterpretation. Sometimes you come off as intransigent, and that might be something to be aware of in future discourse. I know this is also a function of age, as we tend to become more stubborn and set in our ways over time. One way to combat this is to try new things and attempt to see things from the POV you might otherwise never consider. I was thinking about this a few nights ago when I was outside staring at the stars on one of my nightly walks. I realized that one of the reasons I like to take different routes all the time (which is very much unlike most people who get into habits that never deviate from their usual routines) is because I tend to see different things and have varied experiences when I do. I think it is a good idea to be aware of our habits and how they can sometimes hold us back from seeing the larger picture. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, Viriditas, if you have the intention and are able to shift, change, and get a handle on five percent of your habit patterns, that's either part or a by-product of quite a few of the routes "up the mountain", to coin a phrase. Not a subject for Wikipedia talk page discussions though, but I do second your observation and suggestions. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Truly did not mean to imply you're lying @Randy Kryn but it does come across as you arranging some kind of courtroom drama here which I do not think helps matters nor do I think it's productive, but that's your prerogative and is not in contravention of any guidelines.

  The talk page discussion archived before I was back on line, but FWIW I would not have had an issue with your pinging editors who you believed had something to add to the discussion. Star Mississippi 02:28, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. ANI as courtroom? Yes, unthinkable. Next case. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose RK is opinionated and difficult, but clearly not tenentious or disruptive. There are editors in most of the examples who are equally sourceless and express similar sentiment to RK's..it is not as if he is always some solo screaming toddler, desperate to get his way at any cost. Ps and Gs sound great, but pretending there aren't things like fuzzy boundaries and social capital that compete with the rules laid out within the four corners is disingenuous. Some folks want him gone because he is inconvenient, not because he is actually disruptive. If editor time is precious, proposing this was an error. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 13:12, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose any action. I haven't seen any evidence of any disruption. I have seen evidence that editors disagree with Randy, but that has never been enough to remove someone from any particular part of the encyclopedia. We are and should be lenient to tolerate dissent. Katzrockso (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Making some bad arguments is not a reason to topic ban someone. Everyone that edits has made some bad (and losing) arguments in all sorts of discussions. Closers can and do discount the bad arguments. Katzrockso (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  The argument was never "people disagree with him so he should be banned". Some of the first words of the complaint are "It's not that they're an inclusionist, it's that they're inclusionism is by and large not based in policy". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  All the evidence presented here proves nothing more than disagreement with their position.

  A more practical point - guidelines and policies are supposed to document already existing practice. If editors can't influence actually existing practice by participating in discussions in a way that might currently oppose to policies and guidelines (and I'm not saying this is what is happening here), how are they supposed to change policy? As far as I understand your argument (and the general thrust of the case here), our policies are completely set in stone and nobody is allowed to disagree with them. Katzrockso (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Hang on. As a factual matter, there is no reasonable dispute that the !votes JJ posted above are arguments directly contradictory to our policies/guidelines, like NOT and N. We even have a 20-year-old shortcut about this exact type of argument, WP:ITEXISTS.

  So the question, then, is whether making such an argument is disruptive (or whether making the argument "too much" is disruptive, and whether it's "too much" here), right?

  I'd say you're supposed to change policy by suggesting the change on the policy's talk page, not by violating the policy in an effort to change practice so that the policy will then be updated accordingly.

  Right? That seems obvious and uncontroversial to me. Is it just me? I mean, you can push the envelope to some degree, but you can't like, make a bunch of BLPvios or copyvios in an effort to change our BLP and copyright policies. Should AFD votes be any different? Was I wrong when I said above that an editor must apply WP:N, not just vote based on whatever criteria they personally believe is important? Levivich (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Editors can change policy by going to the WP:Village pump or WP:Requests for comment, obviously. Trying to change policy within an AfD itself is disruption and it's troubling that you would claim that is a normal thing to do. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:11, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  No, policies and guidelines are supposed to reflect existing common practice, not dictate it. Katzrockso (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  You are wrong about that, there is a difference between P & Gs. Policies are pretty much mandatory such that editors are expected to follow them - they are behavioral "norms"; whereas guidelines are instructive of best practices that guide editors to follow the guidance.

  I like @Randy Kryn: very much, and consider him a wiki-friend; he's easy-going, kind, is an experienced editor who has done a lot for the encyclopedia and has a terrific sense of humor. I respect him very much for these traits. However he participates in a loosy-goosy manner at AfDs which is frustrating because it does not reflect best practices in following policies and guidelines, especially to newer editors. He has every skill to craft more rigorous !votes than just saying the equivalent of "he/she/it's notable, obviously" or "seems notable", which easily comes across as flippant or careless, and which sets a poor example to new editors.

  If he could express his !vote by saying, "notable because of x,y&z independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage" WP:42 (or meets NARTIST based on these three collections in notable museums or these three reviews...); he would be explaining to other participants how-and-why the subject meets notability criteria.

  This, at least to my way of thinking, deepens the meaningfulness of his participation, has more credibility, and is more respectful of other editors. This is the value of debate. That is how we learn from one another and can build stronger community bonds. That's why I think it's important to follow P&Gs, that is why I think rigorous behavior at AfD is necessary. It's an important part of the encyclopedia, it separates the the relevant content from the spam and low quality content. AfD is important because it insures the integrity of the encyclopedia. We have all made mistakes in AfDs because they sometimes trigger strong emotions or we are rushed, or tired, or things seem obvious to us.

  This whole thread saddens me, and the fact that I've supported the tban pains me. What I would like to see here is Randy committing to writing more thoughtful and rigorous !votes, to demonstrate to his fellow editors that he is taking them and the process seriously, and is following best practices per arguments to make and to avoid in AfDs, and is clearly communicating the how-and-whys of notability criteria. I really hope that happens. Netherzone (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Good thing notability is a guideline and WP:ATA is an essay, so there is not one policy he has even been accused of breaching here, even if we accept the tenuous distinction between policy and guideline that truly has no bearing in reality or actual practice. Katzrockso (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Katzrockso, Following the best practices of P&G are relevant to encyclopedic quality and integrity and helps build community trust. One of the reasons Randy is here is because some editors in the community do not trust that he is taking the AfD process seriously because of repeated behaviors. While it is optional to follow best practices, it is respectful towards community behavioral norms and when those expectations are broken time and again, it certainly can be perceived as disruptive or CIR. If this were not the case we would not be here at ANI.

  The deletion policy page states participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy, section WP:DPAFD. The AfD main page states: a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion. When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets or violates the policy (emphasis mine). It goes on to say Try to always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows closers to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closer. In other words, it's more productive to follow best practices. Y'know, it's actually pretty easy to add three good sources if they exist and a justification to an !vote, and...why not? -- Netherzone (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  If that information page were to be seriously enforced at ANI, I would advocate for mass topic bans of most regular AfD contributors. I have no idea why you think that's worthy of sanction when the majority of AfD participation these days is low quality. Katzrockso (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Redirect - to Mithila Chitrakala Sansthan, it does not currently meet notability criteria, although it may in the future if there is sustained coverage. Netherzone (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Here is a good example of you yourself not following these best practices you seek to sanction others on the grounds of. Katzrockso (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  If it's optional, it feels really, really weird to try to rest sanctioning on it Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOTEVERYTHING is a policy he is accused of breaching. (WP:N is a guideline implementing that policy.) Levivich (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Then where's the evidence? None of the AfD votes provided above demonstrate any evidence of this supposed violation. Katzrockso (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  See JJ's vote and my analysis below it. Arguing that if Star Trek fandom is notable, then all fandom is notable, contradicts multiple sections of WP:NOT. Wikipedia does not cover all fandoms (WP:NOTEVERYTHING), it's not an indiscriminate collection of fandoms (WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE), a catalogue of fandoms (WP:NOTCATALOGUE), or a guide to fandoms (WP:NOTGUIDE). The WP:N guideline guides editors in determining which fandoms to include and which to exclude. WP:ATA is an essay that explains this exact thing, including in the sections WP:ITEXISTS and WP:OSE. The quotes in JJ's votes would make excellent textbook examples for those sections of WP:ATA. This is the risk of arguing WP:JUSTANESSAY: sometimes the essay does an excellent job of explaining the policies and guidelines in practice. This is one of those times: this exact discussion we're having is so old and well-trodden that there's a well-developed essay about it that's been around for literally 20 years. Levivich (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think this analysis of Randy's vote in that AfD is not assuming any good faith. Read PARAKANYAA's vote, the ultimate outcome (redirect) and the section it was redirected to. It seems to me that Randy was ultimately correct: the nomination's claim that "of limited interest outside the closed circle of Robert Anton Wilson fandom" was not policy-grounded and not a legitimate rationale to delete the article. I don't agree that these comments constitute a violation of NOT Katzrockso (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the topic ban, however I would like to note that from my obversations of Randy's behavior here at ANI especially, it feels as if he judges the mood of a conversation and then deliberately steps in to voice the opposite opinion for the sake of opposing. If that is deliberate, Randy, you may want to tone it down as it leads to stuff like this. If it isn't, then you should be aware that it can easily seem like it is, and perhaps take steps to mitigate that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks The Bushranger. No, I don't do that, but maybe I've answered too much here. I'll not read this until Tuesday unless someone pings me. An admin who shall remain nameless has a habit of calling me a contrarian, and that may stick in the subconscious of some editors. I do, however, dance like that, and have been kicked out of several nightclubs. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Randy exists and he's one-of-a-kind, so it's WP:COMMONSENSE to not sanction him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Keep per above Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:53, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions. It is everyone's right to be wrong (but not disruptive) in AfDs, I have seen no evidence of disruption, and we should try to avoid even the appearance of biasing the outcome of consensus discussions by banning those we disagree with rather than through strength of arguments. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN, encourage better sourcing at AFD and revisit. Two things can be true: a user may make votes or rhetorical statements venturing far from policy that don't help an AFD and the evidence seems clear that is the case and needs improvement. But also, procedurally a TBAN is not appropriate at all. A path better than "ignore it" or "ban from AFD" may be "expect the user to name sources or don't !vote" and hold them to it. From what I understand from the sum of the above, the substance of the concern isn't merely presenting conflicting opinions, but that there is a very articulate interpretation of WP:N presented when source-based notability is being discussed, and that assessment is defended strongly even when it ceases to be helpful to the AFD.
  I don't see the merit in a TBAN to prevent a user from participating because they fall afoul of a percieved level of policy literacy. "They should know better" is an understandable point but a TBAN off the bat implies it's at such a disruptive level it cannot improve. There are things to work on but if the "behaviour" is "unsubstantiated votes" and "misinterprets policy" that covers so many users at all levels of experience that participate in AFD. I think there are other less serious behavioural levers to encourage clarity and directness in engaging at AFD that don't consist of a ban; just ask Randy to be more proactive with sources and pick their battles better. If this is a pattern that continues, sure. VRXCES (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would support that in lieu of a TBAN but it would only work if Randy agreed. Levivich (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy himself said above that there is "little he considers truly incorrect" about what is being presented here. A wag of the finger will probably not accomplish much, if anything. If it does, awesome, but his recent and current edits do not suggest as much. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. Randy's response to JJ's comment is one factor that made me change my vote, particularly "As for Robert Anton Wilson ... the article you point to proved, as it should be, a notable topic." That's the AfD where Randy argued "Why choose one type of "fandom" to delete while leaving others?" and I find that to be a rather jaw-dropping statement because there is an obvious answer to that question, and it's WP:N. The whole thing is about why one type of "fandom" (or anything) and not others: because some are "notable" (as Wikipedia defines the term) and others are not. And why we distinguish between notable and non-notable also has a very old, very fundamental answer, and it's WP:NOT. Because Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That's Wikipedia's First Policy (literally), its Prime Directive, its First Commandment... from which literally every other rule flows. I was surprised to read that quote from the AfD, and further surprised to read Randy say, in reply, that it was "proved" to be "a notable topic" because the word "notable" means "complied with WP:N" but the argument is 180 degrees from WP:N (literally an WP:OSE argument). That, to me, really validated what supporters have been saying in this thread. That's a long way, IMO, from other issues raised in this thread, e.g. arguing WP:SUSTAINED for a 2019 painting covered in 2026, or having a 66% match rate (neither of which I think is a problem). Levivich (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  just ask Randy to be more proactive with sources and pick their battles better. this is just prolonging the problem. also randy's largely just been doubling down in this thread, what makes you think this will work?

  wikipedia has a severe problem with enabling this kind of behavior. then people wonder why the site can be toxic or frustrating... grapesurgeon (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I accept your point on efficacy, and @Zxcvbnm's, but a TBAN looks disproportionate where the only alternative is to do nothing, particularly as the first formal venue for this conduct. Conduct-based conditions to require sources in !votes do not require agreement (@Levivich) and can escalate if they achieve nothing. If consensus sees that as still too weak, fair enough, but I'd rather have put other tools on the table than left it as a binary. VRXCES (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy can easily appeal the TBAN after a while and get it overturned, so I do not think it is disproportionate. It is simply a measure to demonstrate that what he is doing is seen as disruptive and must change. There is nothing permanent about this TBAN if he can demonstrate he understands policy afterwards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is a genuine question I am hoping you have an obvious answer in mind for and not a rhetorical attack: how would you expect them to demonstrate improvements in understanding of policy within a specific process if the sanction makes them unable to participate in that process? VRXCES (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  They appeal the block and explain what they've learned from the process. If they continue having issues they can get longer blocks.

  A question for you: how would you expect them to improve when there is 1. no will for them to do so and 2. no enforcement mechanism at all? You say there are tools on the table, what are they? grapesurgeon (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think we want the same outcome (lesson learnt and improved behavior) and just disagree on which comes first. Conduct-based conditions on AFD !vote engagement are a middle ground and a TBAN can be an enforcement consequence. In the optimistic case, the conduct improves, in the pessimistic case, the TBAN is founded on a much cleaner record than the complex and contested one we have now. VRXCES (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is kicking the can down the road. My impression is Randy is not interested in changing the behavior. You also didn't wait for Randy's commitment to changing before you voted. Effectively you've voted for Randy to keep doing this. Think a bit more about the impact of your vote. grapesurgeon (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Meeting a desire to find middle ground with the claim doing so is practically endorsing the behaviour seems unduly discouraging and unnecessary to make the point now made three times. VRXCES (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've made this point four times now because you're not understanding this: what is an actionable middle ground? You have no actionable proposal (Randy hasn't agreed to it) and worse you've functionally contributed to this issue being prolonged. grapesurgeon (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I apologise if I didn't explain correctly. I recall there was a suggestion to conditionally require future AFD !vote engagement to provide sources. I discussed above agreement is not necessarily needed if I suppose more conducive to success. I was putting this out as an idea to reconcile my mixed position - if it's unworkable in context of the user's behaviour or willingess to compromise, that's what it is, and we can move on. I just don't understand why this is getting prosecutorial: this conversation has 120 comments from 29 people. Pointing the finger at me for unqiuely complicating or drawing this out feels somewhat unfair. VRXCES (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  My point is this: these proposals are all well and good but they need to be actionable. Maybe set up a sub post where people vote on a proposed remedy that is binding to Randy. Just voting oppose while making vague gestures towards doing something else is not good.

  Also being fair I've accused multiple others of prolonging the problem, it's not just you I've done it to. I stand by my accusation. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Agree with above, an appeal is almost certain to work.

  Do not do nothing. Do not kick the can down the road. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I have opposed above, and would prefer you not denigrate that as "kicking the can down the road." This is not an urgent, actionable problem, and your constant hammering is becoming close to bludgeoning this process. I suggest you pipe down and let things take their course, lest someone start thinking about the loopstick. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 14:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with your comment (my OPPOSE is above), and I feel that your characterization is falling close to failing WP:AGF and WP:BLUDGEON. Your proposed solution is quite severe, and a lot of us disagree either on there being a problem (i'm in that camp, I don't find there to be a problem strong enough for any kind of sanctioning at all) or on the severe action of a TBAN being a viable solution. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm still making my way through this, but my understanding is that the NOT/sources exist arguments are the crux of the issue and not the other inclusionsist perspectives. I can understand Grapesurgeon's concern for treating Randy differently than we would other editors, but I'm also cautious of getting rid of viewpoint diversity. If there's a way to get an actionable committment from Randy that the former won't happen, wouldn't that be the best solution for everyone? I suppose it's possible I'm too naive to just believe that'll happen. I really do think his perspective on how sustained tends to be applied isn't actually that out there, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose TBan or any other sanctions. As Randy and I have shared topics of interest, he and I have both contributed in many AFDs and other discussions. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not. Randy can be vocal in discussions, but I have always considered his arguments to be constructive, even when arguing against me or an against my viewpoint. I see nothing in this page that would warrant any sanctions. Frank Anchor 16:49, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone, both pro and con, for your opinions and advice, and yes, of course if allowed to stay the course under weather warning I'll be more succinct in my reasoning and comments and source identification, and yes, will refrain from an actual ivote if the question falls into major controversy over approach. Again, no editor has ever come to my talk page to discuss any of this, including the nominator, or to alert me about disruption concerns, which I think is an important missed step in this process not only for this situation but for any major disruption concern about established editors (not necessarily for new editors but even there it could help create better Wikipedians). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
• what is an actionable middle ground? How about Randy Kryn gets a topic ban for 6 months. Not to punish the editor, but to give other editors a break for a while. I think some of us have made a good case for how time consuming Randy Kryn's particiation in AfDs is, explaining Wiki policy over and over again to them. The comments here have died down. I hope this doesn't get closed with no administrator input. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  @WomenArtistUpdates: Could you give examples of the most frustrating debates that stand out in your mind? I likely won't get involved in an adminstrative capacity, but I do think it's important for people to know their impact on others and what specifically is causing that pain. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Clovermoss: This one is a lulu. Extremely frustrating. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  @WomenArtistUpdates, that should have gone to Deletion Review, as your source analysis is spot on. I translated the sources, which consist of WP itself, press releases, auction results, a database of auction results; a name check. I'm not seeing anything that confers notability. Just because there is a photo of a person and/or a picture of their work in a press release or auction does not count; it's still a primary source. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to craft these source analysis tables, and it is indeed frustrating when people don't pay attention to them at AfDs, or don't do the work of actually translating from other languages. Netherzone (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  Following the nominator who said it was barely notable, he replies first saying Keep, then you said Delete, then two others said Keep. The article ended in Keep. I asked Grok https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_8877e8bc-f40f-484a-b2e7-58804031fe6c and it found https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/439750/Calligrapher-Keikhosro-Khorush-honored-with-lifetime-achievement and other reliable sources giving him coverage for things. The free version of Grok is good at finding references sometimes, so should always be asked, faster than searching yourself. Dream Focus 20:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy, is there anything you would do differently here if you could turn back time? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Clovermoss, WomenArtistUpdates, if you're talking of that example, please read the entire discussion again and note that I made my fairly tepid comment before the chart was presented and didn't come back. I don't watchlist every AfD, and that one I have no memory of looking at again. The chart took a lot of work, very in depth, but let's not leave the implication that that it has anything to do with this discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy, after that discussion on your talk page (which you just deleted), I no longer know if this is all a big joke to you. I no longer know what to believe. This is all beginning to seem like a big, multilayered baloney sandwich. Netherzone (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  That discussion veered off into odd comments about writing or not writing essays, turning into nothing having to do with this discussion. No joke intended. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  I was confused seeing some of it, but there's other explanations than malice. I know sometimes I don't like looking at certain things when I'm stressed. Some people try to joke to lighten the mood, but if it's not reciprocated, it tends to make everything feel worse. I'm not Randy so I can't say what's going through his head, just wanted to offer some other possible explanations.

  I feel a bit bad about suggesting an essay topic in the midst of a noticeboard thread, since it seemed to prompt everything that came after. I was trying to be encouraging in the sense that there are things he says that I think are good arguments, but it might not have been the right time or place. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) WomenArtistUpdates didn't say the chart was why she was frustrated and I think I can get why she might take issue with what you consider to be a tepid comment. Prolificness doesn't inherently mean notability, and neither does saying sources exist. I don't fault you for the argument of not knowing how significant coverage is in another language, though. That's completely understandable. But I think it's the first two parts that are frustrating fellow editors in the AfD area since I've seen a few comments along those lines in this thread. It doesn't have to mean changing everything about how you think or approach debates, but I'm not you so maybe it's a bigger deal than it seems. I think that if you avoid those two specific things, other people would be less frustrated. To what extent frustrating people evolves into sanctions is complicated, but I think it's nice to try to avoid frustrating others if one can. This will likely be my last comment in this thread. I didn't really mean to get involved in the first place, but sometimes my optimistic side pops out. I'm saying this because I don't want another admin to think that I'm taking on the responsibility of doing/not doing anything here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Another reply to the above comment, adding Netherzone and Dream Focus along with WomenArtistUpdates and Clovermoss. WomenArtistUpdates, you were asked for an example, and the context of that request was in connection with this thread, kind of a "tell me what Randy did way wrong", and you came up with that example. Realize I did not see your chart, was obviously tentative in my opening response, and did not read the discussion again until just now. Please consider striking language which can imply that this should be laid at my doorstep, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• what is an actionable middle ground? - Randy should be issued a formal warning; I will be retracting my support for the Tban in my next edit. Randy has stated above that he intends to improve his reasoning and source identification at AfD. He is correct that editors/admins should have first contacted him about the issues. Yesterday he stopped by my talk page and essentially promised to agree to advice given. I believe he is sincere about this and will edit more productively on future AfDs. Netherzone (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  Support formal warning, and as I've stated above oppose TBAN - good idea, Netherzone. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  The statement did not address the obvious toxicity shown even in the current discussion. The statement on Randy's talk page that "Yes, quite a few editors opposing me have been on opposite sides of keeping a kept page, which, when they see me in the ANI arena, are probably tempted to get their licks in." is a particularly egregious WP:ADHOMINEM suggesting everyone who would support this is a biased deletionist rather than simply frustrated about having to defend against unfounded accusations of nominator incompetence. If it was just about slight innocent errors in judgement then sure, but there is obviously a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here and good faith is not being assumed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  • z this. As for battleground, please reread this discussion, you are the one firing the missiles in some imaginary battle. You forgot to note that I was asked a direct question, answered honestly. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

    • Not sure why this is threaded under my comment. zxcvbnm, do you think I'm battlegrounding somehow by changing from support tban to formal warning? And also want to point out to Randy Kryn that the link seems to be dead or incorrect so you might want to check that. Maybe a different bulleted indent structure is needed starting with Jishara's comment for clarity sake. Netherzone (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose any sanction on involvement by Randy Kryn in deletion discussions. Maybe I have missed something, but I think it is more likely that I am just reading policies and guidelines literally and seriously, rather than just seriously. The main issue appears to be that Randy Kryn casts Keep votes that are not supported by our policies and guidelines. I don't see a policy or guideline that says that participants in deletion discussions are required to apply policies and guidelines. That is the best practice, and editors should be encouraged to apply policies and guidelines, but that is not required, and casting Keep votes when there is no reason to Keep an article is not, in itself, disruptive. An editor whose votes are not supported by policies and guidelines should be ignored, but should not be censored.
  • I don't see evidence that Randy Kryn is bludgeoning deletion discussions or engaging in incivility, which would be disruptive. I see that he is bludgeoning this discussion, but an editor who is facing possible sanctions should be given some latitude in their own defense.
  • The issue of this editor's participation in deletion discussions looks to me like it is an issue that the community is not resolving. A different community would be able to resolve this by topic-banning the subject editor from deletion discussions, and another different community would be able to resolve this by finding that no action is required. This case is likely to result in No Consensus, and will then be a dispute that the community could not resolve.
  • If this case is not resolved somehow, it may be WP:ARBDEL2.
    Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon: That is an interesting angle, but I believe that "participating in AfD with the intent to vote Keep regardless of merit" would fall under WP:IDHT as the user is aware that the article is likely non-notable and is choosing to ignore this fact. Alternatively, if the user repeatedly did not give valid evidence, it would be a CIR issue that would cast into doubt whether they should be active in that part of the encyclopedia. I am not sure if there is a direct rule about having to justify your vote with evidence, but there is certainly an indirect one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon: Zxcvbnm's already said my thoughts, so I'll just add that this is a bad take. How is that any different than, say, someone !voting oppose on every RfA? (E.g. DougsTech, which was seen as disruptive!) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  "... a policy or guideline that says that participants in deletion discussions are required to apply policies and guidelines": perhaps not required, but WP:DELAFD and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS address this. Levivich (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've been involved in numerous conflicts with Randy, and I've had many attempts to try and understand his POV. I think somewhere along the line over the years, Randy quietly joined the curmudgeon club of extraordinary gentlemen without so much as informing the palace guards or sending us invitations to the solemn ceremony. With that said, he seems like a perfectly reasonable person, but he just chooses not to be, maybe to let his freak flag fly or to just stick it to the man, who knows. I personally find Star Mississippi's concerns reasonable, but I would rather that Randy take a voluntary break from XfD, review the policies and guidelines, and then return when he's ready rather than being forced to take a break. I think he deserves that level of respect based on his tenure and edits here. Also, Randy, if you are reading, I make a point of staying away from XfD (for the most part) because I am an inclusionist, and that's no place for people like us. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Interesting take, and as far as I know I haven't been that unreasonable towards you, but then again we inclusionists seem a world apart at times and I may experience you somewhat as you say you experience me. Yes, I've cut back on my _fd comments since this thread started, and may jump in only at fd attempts of articles I'm personally a party to or feel more strongly about than usual. As mentioned earlier, I don't look at the primary _fd boards which list dozens of new deletions daily, something a few dedicated people keep up with, and have only joined AfD's which show up on my watchlist or on the visual arts article board. Adding to and maintaining Wikipedia's second-to-non visual arts collection is one of my interests here, hence the apparent focus in this thread on issues concerning paintings and artists. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  On the contrary, AfD is a good - actually, great place for inclusionists who are ready to dive in and find sources or improve pages to save articles. It's always great when someone finds sources from obscure places to prove something is notable, or rewrites a WP:TNT level page so WP:HEY applies. That is inclusionism done right. What isn't so good is when people either just vote, claim there are sources somewhere, or mischaracterize poor sourcing as good enough. That's inclusionism done wrong.. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose a Tban. I am convinced that there are potential measures that can be taken to ameliorate an editor's good faith participation in AfD without prohibiting participation altogether. BD2412 T 22:35, 11 September 2026 (U
• Oppose any action being taken againt Randy Kryn as a result of this discussion. If you think he is wrong at XfD then simply argue the opposite case. Of course there are other reasons to sanction him (I mean, who can take anyone called Randy seriously) but this completely misses the mark. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Is this supposed to be funny? It ain't. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Nothing outside parentheses was supposed to be at all funny, and even within them it may elicit a mild chuckle from a few fellow Brits - it wasn't supposed to be "laugh out loud" funny to everyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Phil, perhaps you did not read the long discussion above? This is not simply about differences of opinion at AfDs. It's about RK not following policies & guidelines for participating in discussions. This has been going on for a long time and participants find this to be frustrating at best, or disruptive or CIR at worst. Netherzone (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  I did (that's a lot of time that I will never get back), and I remain convinced that rather than banning anyone people who disagree should argue against him. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  But the point is we've tried that, and it doesn't work. Orange sticker (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  So you're saying he should be topic banned because he disagrees with your point of view and others agree with him? Katzrockso (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  No, firstly I think an indefinite ban is probably too much, but as has been said repeatedly, it's got nothing to do with differing points of view, but failure or refusal to understand basic requirements of notability and verification.

  Just like with Randy, I'm starting to think you're also trolling - just two posts above yours @Netherzone clearly states "This is not simply about differences of opinion at AfDs". It's reasonable to ask someone to expand on their arguments, it's a competence or civility issue when they can't or won't do that, or miss the point completely. Orange sticker (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Isn't it time we do away with these vapid stereotypes of "inclusionist" and "deletionist"? They serve no purpose whatsoever other than polarizing editing participation styles. To Include or delete is a spectrum across subtle grey areas not opposite polarities. I've been called a "deletionist" as an insult or as an attack on my character on multiple occasions; and yet how is that possible when I have !voted Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, Draftify/Userfy, or Stubify on a case-by-case basis. I've created over 250 articles, how could that not indicate inclusion rather than deletion? I am for ending this ridiculous terminology that has been weaponized over the years. I am for getting rid of these stereotypes that have divided us over decades. Let's ban those labels. Netherzone (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  For sure, but categories are just representations that function as heuristics. It's helpful if you think about them this way. The more important point is that Wikipedia as a system is biased towards deletionism, which I think most people would accept as true. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia as a system is biased towards deletionism - citation, please. One wonders, of the 7+ million articles included, how many have been deleted. Netherzone (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Too many refs to choose from. I will just add one: "As of 2018, roughly 64 percent of debates ended in deletion and 24 percent in keeping the article, a ratio that is much lower than the early years of Wikipedia." Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's not incredibly surprising that deletion debates - which require WP:BEFORE beforehand - end in deletion most of the time. Theoretically, if editors are thorough, they should always end in delete/merge, so the keeps are due to errors or oversights on the part of nominators. The fact that they did not end in deletion as much early on in Wikipedia's lifetime is just a factor of it being incredibly easy back then to say "it's probably notable" without sources or "I like it" and it would get kept without much argument regardless of how non-notable it was. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - "makes arguments I don't agree with" should not be a reason to sanction an editor. "Makes arguments I don't agree with that happen to convince others" all the more so. --GRuban (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
  • @GRuban: The argument is that Randy is making AfD arguments that either ignore or contravene Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That's something most people agree on above, whether or not they think action should be taken, and regardless of if that changes your opinion, we should be operating from the same starting point. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:12, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    That's actually how our policies and guidelines are made. With extremely few exceptions, they were not handed down to us carved on stone tablets, but were codified from what people wrote and did. Some guy makes an argument in a discussion, quite often in an AfD discussion. It may or may not succeed in convincing people. If it doesn't, he refines his argument in the next one. If it starts to succeed, eventually people notice: "hey, in the last several similar discussions, we decided X. Let's write that down, and call it a Policy or Guideline". That's called "descriptive not prescriptive", and WP:PAG specifically says that Policy and guideline pages are living documents that attempt to describe the actual practice of experienced editors. When consensus exists, they are updated as needed to reflect changes in editor behaviour. Randy is saying "hey, we should do X", or even "our policy Y already says we should do X". If he keeps saying it and enough people agree with him, policy Y will eventually be amended so it specifically says X. He shouldn't be muzzled from saying that. If he doesn't succeed in convincing anyone, well, the closing admin will notice that no one agrees with him, and will close against his argument, that's why admins make the big bucks. AfD is a discussion, we get to discuss. --GRuban (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    That's not what he's doing at all, though, he's ignoring or ignorant of long standing policy and contributing his opinion based on vibes alone. That's not constructive. Orange sticker (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    @GRuban: What Orange sticker said. There's many ways to change policies and guidelines; this is not an appropriate way of doing that. Also, in any case I don't believe Randy's actually argued that he's trying to change those policies/guidelines. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:25, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    The rules should serve us; we should not serve them. If arguments contradicting certain rules nevertheless gain traction, that is important evidence that the rules need adjustment. By trying to preempt any possibility of collecting that evidence, you are putting the rules first, above common sense, a reversal of the way we should operate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    So, Ed and Orange. David and I disagree with you on this point. If we keep disagreeing with you, are you entitled to ask to have us banned from AN/I the same way? Actually, let's turn it around, since, I think there are now more opposes. Ed and Orange, you disagree with the majority, and you have the nerve, the absolute audacity, to keep giving your opinion. Not backed by any policy or guideline (at least not in our opinion)! That is so clearly disruptive! Why shouldn't the two of you be banned from AN/I? --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    @GRuban: A constructive debate over an editor's behavior is very different than content editing, which I presume you know and chose to ignore in the quest to make a pithy point.

    A better comparison would be repeatedly choosing to add theoretically unlikely to be challenged content to articles without including a citation (because hey maybe contradicting that rule would eventually gain traction, David Eppstein!). Doing that is allowed under our policies and guidelines, but if I did it enough I hope I'd be brought to ANI for making everyone else's lives more difficult.

    Anyone can disagree with our policies and guidelines, and there's intentional leeway for when they prevent us from improving the encyclopedia, but that doesn't give us the freedom to totally ignore them in the hope there will eventually be a consensus to change them. This is definitional WP:PAG and WP:POINT stuff. We aren't playing Calvinball. "... policies and guidelines are standards all users should normally follow [...] [they] should be applied using reason and common sense" Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    You are moving the goalposts by talking about "content editing". This discussion is about contributions to AfDs, not content editing. And your quote about PAG is also about content editing. The notability guidelines are also about content; they are not about censoring AfD contributors whom you disagree with, as it appears you would like them to be about. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    @David Eppstein: Just trying to make a quick comparison. <shrug> Regardless, the argument is that Randy has been ignoring the notability guidelines for several years. It's not about censorship, which is a serious charge that you have not substantiated. Or is AGF another guideline that we don't have to follow if we don't agree with it? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:13, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    Do you deny that you are trying to silence a contributor to AfDs? What is that if not censorship? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    @David Eppstein: I see AGF has indeed gone out the window, and that you haven't actually read what I've written. For example, where have I said in this discussion that Randy should be banned from AfD? What I've consistently said is that Randy has previously asserted (and appears to still be asserting) that topics are notable without providing evidence or actually applying WP:N. What I have not done is support or oppose any proposed remedy. I wouldn't mind an apology for your mistaken serious accusation. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:19, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    You were arguing against an oppose opinion here, which I took as support for sanctions. But I didn't actually check whether you had an explicit support or oppose opinion, so I apologize for misrepresenting your position. My comment still stands regarding the people who actually are supporting sanctions here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    Thank you. I do think some sort of action should be taken when someone is flouting our policies and guidelines. My direct experience with Randy from a couple years ago included him making textbook WP:JUSTNOTABLE arguments and me legitimately begging him to point at sources that he thought contributed to GNG. None were forthcoming, which was illuminating (about him) and demoralizing (to me).

    I don't have a good idea of what the best response would be in this situation. That said, if we take a step back, the idea of taking action against an editor who is misapplying WP:N is not censoring. Zxcvbnm's comment is instructive on this point. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    The ed17, note that you've never discussed any of this on my talk page. Nor has anyone. But this novel length discussion certainly will affect my posting going forward, where I'll be more careful in language and choices (when somebody ivotes 'Keep' or 'Delete' I've thought it means that the editor would like the article kept or deleted, and if they choose to they give reasons). In any case, again thanks to you and everyone here for opening my eyes that adding a word such as 'Keep' could be forbidden unless ironclad evidence is provided. I think I had more trust in closers that they actually read the discussions, but have learned that this is very often not the case. You say I caused you upset a few years ago, anything more recent? Some have offered to let me run things by them if I'm unsure, and will do so. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    Re: talk page, I discussed it in the individual AfDs, ad nauseam, because you're a long-established editor who I was assuming good faith with. I'm glad your eyes are opened now, but you ignored my attempts to open them then; the evidence doesn't have to be ironclad but should at least attempt to demonstrate why a topic is/isn't notable. See e.g. WP:HASREFS. Re: recent, in my first post here I said "all I can speak to" was my previous personal experience and I was sharing it because the OP was demonstrating that the issues had continued. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    Oh come on Randy, you said when somebody ivotes 'Keep' or 'Delete' I've thought it means that the editor would like the article kept or deleted - after 300,000 edits and over 1000 AfDs, you must know that Wikipedia is not like social media where you simply "like" something (or not). If it is true that you did not know, then it seems that you never read the AFD main page: When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets or violates the policy or this: Try to always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows closers to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closer. You really thought that "I like it" is best practice per PAG or are you just joking around with us? If it's not baloney, and you really are serious, then I'm sorry to say that CIR applies in this area of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    Re "taking action against an editor who is misapplying WP:N is not censoring": the idea of defining a strict orthodox reading of WP:N and banning as heretical anyone who deviates from that orthodox reading and has the temerity to express those views is certainly censorship, and it should have no place here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    If there was an objectively correct reading of notability for each article, then AfD would be superfluous and we would simply have everything speedy deleted. Katzrockso (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    Perhaps misapplying wasn't quite the right word there, but as I've said in other posts, the problem is a pattern of AfD !votes that ignore the particulars of WP:N. It's not a disagreement on interpretation. See e.g. Mackensen's second to last sentence below or one of Levivich's posts above.

    Also, once again I have to note that I'm not aware of any evidence or even claims that this is all part of achieving some high-minded goal to change WP:N orthodoxy. He's just been sloppy and has committed to improving. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I have some advice for Randy Kryn and I hope he'll accept it in the spirit in which it is offered. Just about everyone who opposes sanctioning you has taken one of two tacks: defending a user's right to be wrong in deletion discussions, and what I'll call the anti-anti-Randy Kryn position. The latter amounts to sidestepping the thorny question of whether you're right or not to attack the sanctions or the users supporting them. Not many people thinking you're applying policy/guidelines correctly, and when less experienced editors find themselves in that position we usually show them the door. Contrarian behavior tends to exhaust the community's patience. Mackensen (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks Mackensen. Have mentioned that I'll be much more careful in those discussions, and appear in less of them. I really don't know what you mean by "attack the sanctions or the users supporting them", where have I done this? If someone really went through my posts on AfD, and tried to place them in context, and post dozens of positive ones along with what seems to be a chorus of dump-Randy editors, whom I truly reply to "Nobody ever came to my talk page", it would be something, but that's not how things work here. And editors hopefully realize that I don't watchlist every AfD discussion where I've made a comment, so on average will miss posts that come afterwards. Anyway, what a venting this has been, and hopefully, if I'm released from the dock, I assure you all that I'll explain my ivotes further, which, of course, may at times but not often contain my reasoning from the policy WP:IAR and what should be the golden core of some discussions, WP:COMMONSENSE. I am not very contrarian, my vote-agreement percentage is actually quite high for someone who purposely passes by obvious 'Keep' discussions and avoids delete discussions which are going the way I think they should go. I don't edit AfD to rack up stats, but at least I've often provided some defense for articles which I felt should be kept, and they have been much more often than not. This post is edging into walloftext, so, thanks again for your advice. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

  I really don't know what you mean by "attack the sanctions or the users supporting them", where have I done this? You haven't; I was referring to the other participants in the discussion. My point is simply that on the merits; not many people agree with you, and that's a weak position to find yourself in. Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose sanction. I am sympathetic to the idea that poorly or non-reasoned !votes in RfCs/AfDs or similar can be disruptive, but I think we need proper norms for evaluating this kind of behaviour. It's difficult to evaluate an editor's entire participation from a few examples. Still from some of the examples offered, I can't bring myself to see this as particularly egregious.

In the meantime, Randy's self description of how they choose to participate at AfD I think puts the comments at issue in a more reasonable context - they're not being contrarian, they're just only participating in particular discussions that make them appear that way. Samuelshraga (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose the topic ban, support a restriction. Per Wp:De, Randy has disregarded others' requests for explanation per the diffs shared by JoelleJay. Suggest a six month trial where Randy's must cite reliable sources and/or policies in their XfD !vote rationales. Failure to do so is a clear breach that results in a topic ban by an uninvolved administrator. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  So they are allowed to stop citing reliable sources and/or policies AFTER the 6 months are up? If it lasted forever I'd be on board with that, as it is essentially a given in AfD that you have to do that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:24, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  Of course not, sanctions remain the same after six months for policy breach, thanks for clarifying. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere and political parties

Therequiembellishere has been adding "Republican" to the infoboxes of several officials who are affiliated with Republicans but have no source on their own political affiliation. I have reverted these edits as having no source; Therequiembellishere has been reverting those reverts, still without any citations. A few examples:

• Ben Moss (revert)
• Darline Graham (revert)
• Dan Scavino (original edit)
• James Braid (original edit)

Given that this is a pattern of behavior; a clear violation of WP:NOR; and in the case of Graham's article, has been uncivil, I'm looking for an intervention here to formally state that this should not continue. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:30, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Siding with elijahpepe on this, all claims about alignment should be sourced. Therequiembellishere, this kind of edit comment reveals you don't really understand WP:SYNTH. And this... Good lord, you seriously need a conduct intervention. You need to seriously tone down how you talk to others and actually properly acknowledge feedback. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

While Therequiembellishere should tone down the temperature on their comments, ElijahPepe's objections are not credible and suggest a lack of familiarity with politics. If an editor isn't certain whether Darline Graham is a Republican or not, then the WP:V-compliant fix is to investigate and then add the citation directly, which would be fine. Contesting this by removal suggests not even a surface-level investigation. Yes, letter of the law, the WP:BURDEN is on who wants to keep material to source it, but common sense applies too. Objections need to be credible that the content is of unclear veracity, while these cases (especially Graham) appear more like frivolous or uninformed objections. SnowFire (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

No, the policy is, "Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed." Removing the material is absolutely allowed and must be done to avoid uncited material from appearing on a WP:BLP. The policy there is actually WP:BLPRS, and given that it is entirely possible these people are not registered Republicans, it takes precedence. I wrote these articles almost in their entirety by the time of the diffs, I have numerous GAs and GANs about political operatives. The objection is that if it is not cited, it cannot be included in the article. There's no workaround here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the policy, thanks, given I already mentioned it above. But policies can be misused.

I think I understand the problem: you want a source literally saying "Darline Graham's voter registration in South Carolina is Republican." However, that's not what political party in Infoboxes means, or what saying "X is a Democrat" or the like means on Wikipedia. This article from August is one of a zillion sources calling her a "Republican senator". I'm going to presume you found such sources when writing the early version of the article. That's enough, that's what a party means. In the case something weird happens like with Angus King, you'll find sources calling him an "Independent senator." SnowFire (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

To slightly add to the above for what being a party does mean: let's take the hypothetical that it's found out a Congressman is not actually registered to any party somehow. Maybe they moved, maybe they were appointed, maybe the government doesn't do direct partisan affiliation in voter rolls, who knows. This does not matter and is worth a mere footnote on the clerical error, maybe. We wouldn't say that they were secretly unaffiliated, because the registration itself is not what's important, it's the self-identity, the caucusing with Republicans, the alliances, running in the Republican primary, etc. SnowFire (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

This comes from a misunderstanding. At the time, it was unclear what her affiliation was. That information is now known. The other three sources are better examples. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Looking again on the merits. (Thanks for the clarification from ElijahPepe that he isn't currently saying Graham is not a Republican.) There are abundant sources on Dan Scavino and James Braid being Republican political operatives, working closely with Republicans on political matters, being liaisons to Republicans in Congress, and generally being political staff in a trusted role. In 2026 American politics, that means they're Republicans, and is also useful data for an infobox since "which side" is relevant for a legislative operative, it's an inherently partisan role that isn't interchangeable. Even if a source was dug up saying that they used to be a Democrat or even if they are still a Democrat, it doesn't matter, they're actually Republicans (now). I don't think it's worth litigating the status of Darline Graham in July too deeply, but I'd argue that a similar principle would apply there even at the time. I would argue that Ben Moss (attorney) is more of a borderline case. Staff Secretary is... well in practice it's partisan too now, but it's at least potentially a non-partisan role, and the party is less important. So I can see leaving it out in that case, although I wouldn't think any editor was acting in bad faith for either thinking it did qualify or didn't, just seek consensus on the talk page. SnowFire (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The point of this infobox is to explain a current political affiliation, not to talk about their work. Scavino is not a Republican political operative; his entire political work is centered around Trump, not the Republican Party. This is not something that should be judged by editors without a source. I have asked Therequiembellishere for a source multiple times and I have been rebuffed every single time. That is an issue. Articles, especially those about living people, should not be making claims because editors think it should apply. No source, no inclusion. That is policy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are going to edit US politics topics, you need to know US politics. This source (from a trivial Google) indicates that Braid has served on the staff of four separate Republican Congressmen and in both Trump administrations. Would it be nice to have the source literally say "XYZ is a Republican", sure. But this source is saying he's a Republican, as are all the others, as written. Chief of Staff is a trusted core role you give to someone on your "team". The Politico article doesn't go into a long sideline discussion of this fact but it's true. I can't speak for Therequiembellishere but I presume the objection should have been "this is already sourced by the article".

I should be clear that this is not a weakening of WP:V. This is just par for the course. Sometimes sources just assume the obvious, which can be a little frustrating, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia omits it. For example, a source might simply say that "Person X went to ABC College from 1963-67" but not strictly write they graduated. But the general style in writing is that if you bring something like this up, it means by default graduation happened, and you have to write out "but he failed to get sufficient credits to graduate and dropped out" otherwise. This is the same case here. SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

You are taking a condescending tone while misunderstanding what I am saying. I said explicitly that the party parameter should be for affiliations, and the barrier for inclusion is high. I wrote the article on Braid, I know which lawmakers he worked for. I have numerous GAs in this subject. The point I am making is that simply working for Republicans repeatedly is not enough. It is a deduction that is probably accurate but not definitive. If Therequiembellishere had claimed it was already cited, which is not what they did, that would be false. Wikipedia should not be making assumptions. It doesn't do that for any other parameter; if a source says someone lived in an area in their youth, it doesn't claim they were born there. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:45, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

You have asked for community feedback on this, and you're getting it. My feedback is: Therequiembellishere should tone down the vitriol but they are mostly right and you are mostly wrong above. The Republican affiliation is not an "assumption" and the barrier for inclusion is not higher than usual. The party affiliation of political operatives is relevant information to include and that affiliation shines through in the sources for Scavino, Braid, and Graham-in-July. It is sourced. You should pick your battles and contest matters that are genuinely in doubt. SnowFire (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

It is an assumption. I'm not seeing where Scavino is being described as a Republican; as I said before, he seems to have an alliance with Trump, not the Republican Party. Politico described Braid as a "uniquely qualified Trump translator for Republican lawmakers," but that says nothing about Braid himself. There's also no sources about Moss. This is a case where a user is applying a label across the board without using sources, and that is still problematic. Again, there are other parameters that need inline sources. This is no different. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• I’m troubled by ElijahPepe’s history of edit warring over MOS:US. When EP created the Graham page on July 13, EP opted to defy the text of MOS:US which says For commonality reasons, use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it. and first instituted (in contravention of the MOS guidance) their preferred punctuation in this edit. Multiple editors corrected the article and EP reverted them here (uses WP as a source) and here (omits critical text of the guideline), leading other editors to pick up the ball and conclude that U.S. was the established punctuation and therefore settled forever.

Is it good for editors to pretend that the words “use US by default” do not appear in the guideline? Is achieving preferred punctuation meant to be the reward for creating a page?

This comes across as creating and then engaging in one’s own WP:BATTLEGROUND. I think EP (and ampol) might benefit from someone clearly and unambiguously telling them to only establish new pages with US, per the guideline. Mikewem (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this discussion at all. This comes off as a battleground: you've interjected multiple discussions with unrelated details to try to force a particular view that is not policy. I created Darline Graham with American English, and it was already established to use U.S. The other edits were in violation of the policy you mentioned. Please open a specific discussion on this if you want to discuss this; using a discussion about another editor is poor form. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:53, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it actually does have everything to do with this discussion. You started the discussion. That means your conduct is just as open to scrutiny as the editor you were reporting; that not poor form, it's "how things work here" form. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I never said it was beyond scrutiny, I said that this comment was irrelevant to the discussion. If there was some point to make here about Therequiembellishere, that would be relevant. The only connection to this discussion that Mikewem claimed was that I edited the Graham article. That still does not excuse discussing the topic at hand. This is a distraction from the entire discussion based on one weak thread. More words are being spent about a back-and-forth that doesn't appear to have been a violation of WP:3RR than an editor who isn't following WP:V. If Mikewem wanted to discuss this, the better way absolutely would have been a separate discussion rather than hijacking an existing one. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:20, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal that all problematic behavior from an editor is discussed in one thread at ANI. As BushRanger said by opening this thread your behaviour is under scrutiny too. Don't like that then don't open threads. And it's very common that while the behaviour itself would not normally result in sanction, the editor's response when it's raised at ANI is so poor that a preventative block is necessary. An editor demanding we discuss their problematic behaviour somewhere else is definitely the sort of thing that may lead to that. Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

and it was already established to use U.S. is an unacceptable response to a diff that proves that you were the one who established U.S. in the Graham article. This response heightens the degree to which I am troubled. I don’t understand why you’re denying that you were the one who established U.S.

I thought this might be able to easily be solved by an admin telling you to use US in new articles you create in the future, but I now have doubts that will solve what may be an underlying issue. Mikewem (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

No admin said that in this discussion, because you have assumed that the policy means U.S. can never be used. I used U.S. when I wrote the article, so it was already established. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:16, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok this might be a step backward. So you now acknowledge that you were the one who instituted U.S., but apparently in your view, the words use US by default do not appear in MOS:US?

Can we get a concrete answer from you on whether or not you believe those words are present in the text of the guideline? Mikewem (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh!!!! I think I get it. EP understood the text of MOS:US to mean that every single article with an American or Canadian English tag must use U.S.

It’s an issue with the ambiguity of the grammar. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established could be taken to mean that U.S. has been established for all American or Canadian English articles. But that’s not what the grammar of the guideline is meant to convey. It would only have that meaning if there were a comma, such as: in American or Canadian English articles, in which it is already established.

If this is just a grammar misunderstanding issue, it’s still not great, but it could much more likely be solved with a simple explanation of the text of MOS:US from an admin or some other editor EP trusts. Mikewem (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with grammar. I established U.S. for an article with American English. If I had instead used US, that would be the established spelling. Given that one form had already been written, it should not be undone without "good reason". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Do the words use US by default appear in MOS:US.

Yes or no? Mikewem (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Here's another idea: I will never abbreviate United States in any article. Works for me; I barely do it anyway. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

That does not answer the question. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:53, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Fine, it does say those words. I interpreted "by default" to mean a suggestion. Is that fine enough? Can we get on with the actual topic of this discussion now? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:41, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I’m unfamiliar with the interpretation that “by default” can mean a suggestion. Merriam defines it as (5a) a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative. I might associate the word “mandatory” with that definition more than I would the word “suggestion”. Mikewem (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

No, that is not fine enough, that suggests that either you don't understand simple English in attempting to edit the English Wikipedia or you were being deliberately disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy, but I can tell you that it was not deliberate. As I already said, I'm not abbreviating the United States anymore. I didn't expect to be brought to ANI over two dots that I apparently added in mistake, much less that there would be such a vigorous campaign to force this issue when I am trying to bring to attention a much greater problem. Lesson learned. I don't see what the issue is now. If there is an actual, genuine grievance at this moment, I need to hear it. I have not. To repeat it again: I have been told that this policy means that "U.S." should never be written except on existing articles with that styling. I am not going to abbreviate the United States going forward. Acknowledgement and remedy. This is a non-issue. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:52, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

The issue, as I would describe it, is that instead of taking accountability when presented with facts, you doubled and tripled down. Even now, by my reading, it seems that you are refusing to use US by default, opting instead to just never abbreviate.

I’m seeing a pattern of misunderstanding a rule, wielding that (misunderstood) rule like a cudgel against other editors, and then refusing to take accountability for the misunderstanding and the cudgeling. Like with the WP:V party parameter thing above, and with the sfn thing. And maybe a little bit with 3RR (3RR is not an entitlement to revert a certain number of times).

Therequiembellishere seemingly used a diagnostic term in a pejorative sense directed at you. They were wrong to do that and I’m sorry that happened to you. Mikewem (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

This is the point that needed to be made from the start, thank you. I am choosing not to abbreviate because I do not believe that "US" is the proper spelling; before this is misconstrued, that had nothing to do with the interpretation of the policy. I believe that it would be better to use the full term here. That is the remedy, not the acknowledgement, because I do not want to use an abbreviation that I do not believe to be correct. That is not evading accountability.

Bringing this party parameter dispute here was not an effort to try to attack Therequiembellishere; I agree with many of their edits, but this has proved to be untenable because it is going against the policy on verifiability. Therequiembellishere was applying this label to articles about real people, and it's harmful to do that without a citation. Simply working for Republican officials does not make someone a Republican.

I only referenced the policy once and it was a misreading. Mistakes happen, that isn't a pattern of behavior. This is not a misreading of policy, either, it's a disagreement about what a parameter signifies if anything, and there's nothing anyone can cite to conclude how the parameter should be used. Therequiembellishere is trying to claim that these people are Republicans, which is likely true, but "likely true" is not enough for Wikipedia, especially if you are talking about real people. The shortened footnotes imbroglio is completely irrelevant. You tried to apply local consensus to an entire project when the policy does allow for articles to be written entirely in shortened footnotes. Henry Darger was written entirely in shortened footnotes when it became a featured article. The only consensus that was determined was that the Natalie Harp article should not use them. There are some articles where I did change the scheme; I never claimed that I could do that in policy, but I will not do that going forward either. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

As you just said, there's nothing anyone can cite to conclude how the parameter should be used, so what makes you so confident in your conclusion that the parameter is exclusively for party registration? Is there not a reasonable case to be made that a person’s (sourced) political affiliations and activities are of more pertinence to the reader than an entry on a voter registration form? I’ve looked through the archives at the officeholder template, this doesn’t appear to have ever been discussed.

This looks like unilaterally inventing a rule, and then using that invented rule as a cudgel. Mikewem (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere was using that parameter without citations in cases where it was not clear cut. There might be a case for including it on Braid's article, and obviously it should be used for Graham's article now, but for the latter, it wasn't clear what her affiliation was at the time; Therequiembellishere had made a claim without providing any citations. That is consistent throughout the other three articles, including Moss's article, where the word "Republican" is never mentioned, and for Scavino's article, where it was previously discussed that Scavino is not so associated with the Republican Party as he is with Trump. The ambiguity surrounding some of these cases, namely Scavino, is why there is a standard of verifiability. Therequiembellishere has never offered any citation to try to support this parameter being there. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity whatsoever in RS about the name of the party that Scavino does political activities for and the name of the party of the administration that he works in. I saw your point about him being more connected to Trump than the Republican Party, but my understanding is that is just based on your own analysis. It is possible to both be very connected to Trump and also to do political activities (exclusively) for the Republican Party. And, per RS, that is the case with Scavino. Mikewem (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

My objection to the party parameter is not based on what I said about Scavino, but the fact that there is no source that says he is a Republican. Look at Scavino's article: there are five mentions of "Republican", and two of those are about the Republican National Committee and one of those refers to his speech at the Republican National Convention. One does not have to be a Republican to interface with the party, nor to speak at the party's convention. The other two mentions are about Republicans more generally. I want to emphasize that Scavino has never done work for the Republican Party specifically. His entire political career has surrounded Trump and exclusively Trump. It is entirely possible that Scavino could be an independent, and as far as I can tell, personal ideology has taken precedence over career work. Franklin Graham is an excellent example; the party parameter there says he has been an independent since 2015, when he left the Republican Party, even though he has continued to be involved in the party and spoke at its most recent convention. The party parameter doesn't extend down to officials in an administration. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is legally an independent who is a cabinet member in Trump's administration. This is why "common sense" is a horrible standard, because it inevitably leads to disputes over who is a Republican and who is not. There is a standard that Wikipedia is supposed to honor here, especially for living people, and that's verifiability. I can't, or couldn't, verify the party of these people and I wrote the articles in question at the time the parameter was added. It should only be included when that information is known. Again, it's not known if Scavino is an independent. He probably is a Republican, but "probably" is not enough. I cannot stress that any more than I already have. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Not probably, definitely, per Ballotpedia, a WP:RS. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

This source only says he is a "Republican social media consultant," which means that he is a social media consultant for Republicans. That's not exactly true; Scavino is a social media consultant for Trump, not Republicans generally. It's also largely outdated and only has one sentence about his work since 2017. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Ballotpedia is a WP:RS, and the distinction between Trump and Republicans generally seems to be just a you thing. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

No, they are completely different terms. If Scavino was a Republican social media consultant, it would be expected that he would work for other Republicans past Trump. Again, there are independents who serve in positions in the Trump administration; Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of them. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:07, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

According to a WP:RS, Scavino is a Republican social media consultant. At that point, our opinion on whether he should be considered that seems to become WP:OR Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

It is conceivable to doubt the veracity of a reliable source. That's what I'm doing here. Even if it is assumed that Scavino could be considered a Republican social media consultant, this goes back to the problem in the Braid article. Simply working for Republicans does not make someone a Republican. It still doesn't excuse the lack of feedback, and sometimes hostile comments, I have received from Therequiembellishere in trying to find a source for this material. Removing content when it lacks a source is completely acceptable; readding it without a source is not. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:13, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

With concerns having been raised regarding patterns of editing on both sides, and since we are now well into the silly season of American politics where people get swept up in the whirlwind of political party activity around an upcoming election, I propose that we generously give both parties to this dispute an eight week enforced vacation from editing about 21st century American politics, broadly construed. BD2412 T 17:03, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Support for Elijah, Oppose for Requiem. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

This makes no sense. I am not the one trying to add unsourced information in articles. If consensus has determined this sort of editing is actually acceptable, fine, but it sounds like editors don't quite grasp the situation enough to actually a fair answer. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:07, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose action towards Reqiuem, support action towards Elijah

According to the edits, it seems that Elijah is treating american politics as if it's a battleground, which I get, US politics is heavily contested here and in farawaysocialmedialandia, but that doesn't mean we should treat it as a battle ground here.

Although Reqiuem has not sourced their edits, it is perfectly reasonable to assume, that republican or Trump-afilliated influencers, and politicians are republicans. Although there should be some sort of note sayingthat this is an afilliation and not an actual party membership situation.

I believe Elijah deserves the 8 week (2 months) "enforced vacation" from American politics more than requiem due to Elijah bringing Reqiuem here without proper discussion. shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:27, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't treat it as a battleground. I saw edits that were uncited, I reverted them, and then I was rebuffed. I didn't revert those reverts. This was not an effort to harass or chastise anyone, it was a venue I believed was appropriate. Imposing a topic ban is a punishment that doesn't accurately meet what happened. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Why didn't you attempt discussion with Requiem? Why were they brought here after various edits without discussing the edits with them? shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:41, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think it was going to get anywhere. Therequiembellishere seemed set on the idea that this was how the parameter should be used to the point of attacks. That specific comment is what motivated me to go here. I also felt it was not a dispute, but rather a violation of policy. Again, it was not to try to get them blocked or anything of that sort, it was just to get an administrator to intervene. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:53, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Should have still attempted communication.

Still saying, Oppose action towards Reqiuem, support action towards Elijah shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but I consider that a mistake, nothing to bring down the hammer over. Seeking the wrong venue is not quite the same as the range of crimes that would warrant a topic ban. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:09, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the midterm elections. These edits occurred before then, and only one is a politician; at the time, she wasn't. I wasn't asking for Therequiembellishere to be completely sanctioned or blocked, and that wouldn't fix this. I was looking for intervention to say that editing this parameter without a source is not acceptable; apparently, it is acceptable. I'll take that and leave, because I'm not making any headway with trying to say that this is plain, uncited editing on a BLP. Therequiembellishere and I have not been involved in any dispute since this was opened, and I will drop the issue if there's clear confirmation from an administrator that none of these edits were improper. I will also add that neither of us have been disruptive. Some of the complaints raised about my editing have since been resolved. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:31, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Support for Elijah, my biggest concern is the WP:Wikilawyering.

Neutral at this time for Requiem, though commenting that my expectation is to never see them use a diagnostic term in a pejorative sense again. Mikewem (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

You raised three concerns about my editing. The first is about shortened footnotes, which can be used on articles per WP:CITESTYLE, which makes it quite clear what the policy is: Nearly any consistent style can be used. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not overwrite that for every single article I have written. The second is about the abbreviation of the United States, and I legitimately believed that it was acceptable to use "U.S." for the same reason as MOS:DATETIES. I acknowledged that was not the right reading and I took steps to rectify the issue. There were only two offending edits that were made with the assumption that if an article uses "U.S.", it should continue to do so. That is written in the policy, and your issue was that "U.S." was used in the first place. The third is about the party parameter, and that is not wikilawyering at all. Therequiembellishere was trying to apply this parameter on articles where there couldn't have even been a claim to any party based on the article's contents. Moss's article never had the word "Republican", nor did Graham's article, and Scavino's article mentioned Republican in very specific contexts. None of this is wikilawyering. In order: an application of policy that is consistent with policy, a misunderstanding of policy, and a dispute over a parameter. All three have also been rectified: I don't use shortened footnotes for non-document sources, I won't abbreviate the United States going forward, and I have acknowledged that there are enough people here who disagree with me on the parameter that it's a non-issue. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose action against Therequiembellishere as I don't think their conduct, if it was wrong at all, was so wrong to warrant anything more than a talking to. Neutral on Elijah but I'd suggest he take a step back here. Jessintime (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose action towards elijahpepe but my suggestions are this to elijahpepe: 1. communicate even if you think it'll fail; this is just procedural and necessary for getting a block if needed 2. pick your battles better, if you're going to argue pick something with larger impact and importance grapesurgeon (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not interested in and don't have time for another siloed micro-discussion that boils down to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". Therequiembellishere has a long, long, long history of edit warring and WP:OWN. Since they work almost exclusively on a very narrow subset of content, it may have flown under the radar all this time. That aside, there's a similar issue that's far broader than what this discussion is willing to acknowledge. Many editors have a practice of showing a party affiliation for holders of nonpartisan offices. This is usually done in such a way that most likely misleads readers into believing the person is holding a partisan office under that party. This includes officeholders whose party affiliation may not necessarily be widely known. Doesn't that violate WP:BLPPRIVACY? Using BLP to eradicate valid biographical information isn't a stance which has teeth when this is going on to such a large extent. Birthplaces which are completely made up out of thin air is another rampant problem with BLPs that the community is loath to acknowledge or address. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I also have noticed that behavior, but it's besides the point of this discussion. I wouldn't go so far as to claim this is a BLPPRIVACY violation; these are public figures. I do believe that Wikipedia shouldn't just be ascribing parties because they're real people and any false information is problematic. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:50, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

This might apply to Moss, per above. It does not apply to the other three. To take Braid as an example: "Chief of Staff" for a Congressman is a partisan role, in fact the most partisan one. Chief of Staff manages party relations and manages the political campaign and everything. On a scale of 1 to 100 of partisanship it's a 99.9, it's not a place for bipartisan reach-out, it's not even a place for factional reach-out within party. About the only possible 21st century exception I can think of was Dean Barkley's short term as appointed Senator, which I checked - he was in office for all of two months, and he apparently mostly kept the previous Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone's staff despite being a Reform Party member for his two months of being a lame duck. But none of these cases are something weird like a Reform Party senator, but rather Republican Congressmen who never switched parties and represent ruby-red districts. If you get hired as a Chief of Staff, congratulations, that means your party now matches whoever it is you're working for, regardless of anything that happened before. I gave an example above about how some sentences might technically allow for a rare alternate scenario as literally written, but if that rare scenario is really the case, it's on the writer to present that rare exception. If someone says "I went to the supermarket to get ready for the party tonight", that means they got the food. If they actually didn't buy anything and no food is ready, they need to continue the sentence. SnowFire (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

IP account disruptive editing, POV pushing

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

On 5 September 2026, a new IP editor made 15 edits in under an hour, removing well-sourced content about Scientology across four articles. All edits were reverted (by four different editors). Two warnings were issued, but only after the IP had stopped editing.

The editor's removals included entire section blanking (diff1) (diff2) (diff3), unsourced term changes (diff4) (diff5) (diff6) (diff7), and repeated edit-warring on The Bridge to Total Freedom article (see 5 to 6 September 2026).

Their edit summaries were argumentative including terms such as "absurd", "biased", "sensationalism", and "false information".

Request: Block the IP for disruptive editing and POV pushing. Page protection may also be appropriate.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:55, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

As the TA (not IP) has stopped editing and in fact has not edited since being warned, I am not sure why this was brought here. Page protection if necessary can be requested at WP:RFPP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

They merely slept and are now back at it. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep. New temporary account (~2026-48316-87), same location, same edit warring behavior, worse edit summaries. Pinging The Bushranger.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:34, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

And another new profile (Trueandreal123).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

At least Trueandreal123 is engaging in a reasonable way on talk pages. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

As the account bearing in mind WP:OWB #72 appears to be engaging (and, for clarity's sake, it's not sockpuppetry for an unblocked TA to establish an account; indeed, it's desirable) at the moment this seems to no longer be an issue? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:59, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

No problem with them making an account but isn't it good form to make it clear that they are the same person if they are, when commenting on the same threads? SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I would just take the win. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

While the Trueandreal123 account (TAR123) has not made actual article edits, their talkpage activity continues the same dispute patterns/arguments as the edit summaries of TA1 and TA2, and two of the talkpage threads were started by TA2 and immediately continued by TAR123. A post at WP:RFPP resulted in a 24-hour block of TA2 for 3RR, and also suggested that "ANI might be the better place for this". TAR123 has made an acknowledgement about other accounts: .

The arguments the trio have been presenting (on several Scientology-related pages) attempts to remove, reframe and challenge established and sourced content. TAR123 has been posting extensive and highly technical arguments (WL), presenting obscure difficult-to-locate sources, and arguing detailed organizational distinctions based on alleged 'actual' or 'real life now' concepts instead of presenting sources for those. Several editors have responded across the various talkpages, and discussions are dominated by lengthy posts that impede normal consensus-building. TAR123 is now engaging in prolonged talkpage advocacy, does not address counter-arguments, but continues to press their viewpoints, often shifting focus when earlier claims are answered. There is a continuation of the same disruptive conduct spanning all three accounts, now shifted entirely to talkpage advocacy.

• The best example of this POV-pushing behavior is the lengthy thread at Talk:The Bridge to Total Freedom#"Costs section"—which was preceded by whole section blankings by TA1 and TA2, 5 times!
• A sample contradiction by TAR123 is their demands to remove content sourced from 1971 (Cooper) as no longer historically relevant, while suggesting we include something from Wallis (1977) as relevant on the same point. (same "costs" thread)
• Samples of obscure sources TAR123 has mentioned:
  • (1) court documents from Hernandez v. Commissioner 1989 including SCOTUS decision and docs from "the underlying federal cases" (diff), and
  • (2) an Australian Government Fair Work Omnbudsman report from 2011. (diff)

TAR123 has denied connection with the Scientology organization (here and here), while using intricate insider-style talking points and obscure documents to support their pro-scientology arguments. Quack. This is beyond "interest" in a single topic; it appears to be NHTBAE.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:03, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

"Quack" is a strong and baseless accusation, Grorp. Also "pro-Scientology" is a strong accusation also. I just want non-factual things to be corrected, which they have been, so thank you, but you needn't accuse me of nonsense, which this is. Do I know the rules of Wikipedia? Not really. But I am learning and trying to work with you guys. But I would like you to take back this accusation, both of these two accusations. If I were "pro" Scientology, I would be telling to re-write entire articles, remove negative things, etc. Instead, I want present-time, accurate information, which is the direction things are moving into now. As an additional comment, it is quite disgusting how false information on this subject was allowed to exist on Wikipedia of all places for years. So the correction has long since been due, and now things have been updated. Trueandreal123 (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I was also using AI to find some of the information, so it might not have been "me" giving some sources, it might have been what the AI searched the web for. Trueandreal123 (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

"Quack" means a fake expert. I was never pretending to be an expert in anything here. Trueandreal123 (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Quack was not referring to expertise.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

This is so remarkably vague and seemingly bitter that it seems to belie your credibility as a Wikipedia contributor. Can you explain what this baseless claim means? I did not falsify anything. Trueandreal123 (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I clicked the duck link. The thing here is that I wasn't "making anything pro-Scientology". I can see you are anti-Scientology, because the duck test conforms to your behavior, but I am not "pro Scientology" as I haven't asked to have anything be "pro". That said, the Cooper statement is "anti", not neutral. I am aiming for neutrality, not "pro" or "anti". It makes it seem like the Church is a "loan" organization, but there isn't evidence of such behavior since at least the 1970s. There was also the instance in the talk page for "Rehabilitation Project Force" in which you said "you weren't surprised" that it might still be extant (this was an older post) "Not surprised. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)", exhibiting anti-Scientology bias. So you can safely be treated by other contributors as "anti", and I can be safely treated as neutral, not in favor of "extraordionary OT levels" that haven't been substantiated (like OT 20, etc.). If I were this, then I would be "pro", but I'm "neutral". Trueandreal123 (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Using specialised Scientology jargon like "wins" and "tech" in your own voice is a tell. Nobody but Scientologists and former Scientologists use such unqualified terminology. Fences&Windows 22:40, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's the terms they use. If one used an LLM, it would use the same terms. I was explaining how they do things or what they pay for or seek after. Trueandreal123 (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

These do not appear to be LLM-generated phrasing: tech-diff, wins-diff1, wins-diff2.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:17, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

If I reflect terms that both Scientologists and ex-Scientologists say, is this not normal and par for the course in this sort of work? I could say Transcendental Meditation or Buddhism or other groups are and have "tech" who have "gains" or "wins" also.

When I said "wins", I was saying "There is value for at least some people, who do Scientology."

A neutral observer MUST agree that Transcendental Meditation and Scientology and Buddhism and all sorts of spiritual practices have value for people who do it, even if they pay large sums. This is the neutral, secular opinion of this.

Many people love Transcendental Meditation, and give them huge money.

Earlier, On Talk:Operating Thetan, you said "After finally untangling Hubbard's convoluted tale ..." Does this not reflect anti-Scientology bias, instead of a more neutral tone? I do not think it is "convoluted", it's quite simple and is just a couple pages. It says, "I stand for the Galactic Confederacy", "The Marcab invasion is the bad thing". Trueandreal123 (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

People loving snake oil and throwing huge amounts of money at its peddlers does not magically change the fact that it's snake oil or make its peddlers any more legitimate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Scientology and Buddhism and Transcendental Meditation aren't "snake oil". They are legitimate practices that many people derive great value from. Even if TM involves people hopping up and down. Many practitioners would claim it greatly benefits their psyche.

Snake oil is "a fake product, scam, or deceptive medicine that is sold as a cure-all but has no real value."

We could also throw in psychiatry, psychology, certain college degrees, and so forth, into this "snake oil" accusation category.

This is unconstructive.

1) None of the 6 aforementioned practices are claiming to "cure all".

2) None of the 6 aforementioned practices are "fake", they all DO something and do conform to their stated effects.

3) They all, axiologically, DO have value.

The Bushranger is anti-Scientology, due to duck policy. We should aim for neutrality, not bias. Trueandreal123 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The fact you repeatedly conflate Buddhism (an actual religion) with Scientology and Transcendental Meditation (quackery) is proof you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. Given that editors with 'Truth' in their usernames are all but invariably here not to push actual verifiable facts but instead WP:THETRUTH, I support a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Scientology is an actual religion. Buddhism is if ones accepts the Western view of religion; it is NOT if one accepts an Eastern traditionalist view of Buddhism. TM isn't because they don't brand themselves as that. Scientology and Transcendental Meditation aren't quackery. This is an emotional, subjective interpretation. I also propose a block on The Bushranger, because he is filled with emotion. I stand for neutrality. Trueandreal123 (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, there are various Buddhist schools / groups that do cost "money" to participate, for example the New Kadampa Tradition. This is not exclusive to groups like TM and Scientology. Trueandreal123 (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I just submitted a username change request to be called 'neutral_user123'. I don't care about the username as such. It doesn't matter to me. Trueandreal123 (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Hm, it would be nice if I was allowed to rename the username, as 'True' is poor form I suppose Trueandreal123 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The fact you repeatedly conflate Buddhism (an actual religion) with Scientology and Transcendental Meditation (quackery) is proof you are not here to help build an encyclopedia.

This is a very surprising read. It means there is a some list of religions, that editors have to treat as "an actual" vs ones, they have to treat as a "quakery" instead, to be eligible to edit? If latter is actually about WP:FRINGE, why not just link it? ~2026-49709-32 (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. And I am absolutely here to build an encyclopedia, cooperatively. I am getting the hang of the rules. Trueandreal123 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Repeated personal commentary and possible hounding by ChessEric

I am requesting administrator input regarding a pattern of increasingly personalized comments by User:ChessEric arising from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Detroit tornado. I am not asking ANI to adjudicate the underlying AfD or the article's notability; my concern is the conduct that has developed around that disagreement.

The dispute began when ChessEric !voted delete and characterized the article as a “classic case” of an editor wanting “to be the 1 to make an article 1st,” adding that he was “getting tired of this nonsense.” Diff. I subsequently raised the motive attribution on his talk page and asked that discussion remain focused on the article rather than assumptions about the editor who created it.

After that request, ChessEric expressly repeated the same motive attribution, stating that he “know[s] it when [he] see[s] it,” could “literally [not] think of any other reason,” and again asserted that the article had been created so someone could take the “title” of being first. Diff

The discussion continued, and after I asked him to support a claim about mandatory peer review with policy, he replied, “Dude; you've been here for a month. You don't know everything.” Diff I then explicitly stated that I had repeatedly asked for discussion to remain focused on content, sourcing and policy rather than my motives, experience or competence, and said that I would disengage and seek administrator input if the personal commentary continued.

ChessEric then responded with a lengthy comment continuing to discuss my conduct and experience, including telling me that experienced weather editors “don't just make [articles] and get upset when someone calls us out on it” and instructing me how I should approach future weather articles. Diff

Shortly afterward, ChessEric went to User talk:Lightbulb Noob, where I had previously raised a separate conduct concern stemming from the same AfD, and joined that discussion specifically to “vent” about being “personally attacked,” referring to the dispute involving me. Diff

I recognize that I initiated the discussion on ChessEric's talk page and that I continued responding longer than was productive. However, the purpose of my initial message was to ask that unsupported speculation about my motives stop, and I repeatedly attempted to distinguish criticism of the article from commentary about me personally. I have now disengaged and do not intend to continue the exchange.

Given the repeated motive attribution after requests to stop, the comments about my experience and competence, and the subsequent continuation of the dispute on another editor's talk page, I would appreciate administrator input on whether this conduct is consistent with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and potentially WP:HOUND, and whether any warning or other intervention is appropriate. I am not requesting a particular sanction. DUBYA18 (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I said this before and I'll say it again: you came to my talk page asking me to change my opinion on why the article was made and I said no because I didn't believe you. You continually hounding me about only discussing the article on my talk page was not appreciated. I made observations about your behavior and you accused me of attacking you, which I wasn't, so I gave you advice for how to be better in the future. I went to another editor who I've talked with before about my frustrations and you coincidentally had gone after them too, so I commented on it, and you responded with an ANI. I didn't provoke you in any way, I didn't threaten you, and I continued to make comments on just the article in the discussion. For the record, I was actually in the process of rewriting the "You don't know everything." comment, but you replied before I could. I don't apologize for what I said on my talk page because you personally came after me 1st, not the other way around. ChessEric 09:22, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, I did not go to your talk page to ask you to change your !vote or your opinion about whether the article should exist. My initial message specifically concerned your attribution of a motive to the editor who created it - namely, that the article was created because someone wanted “to be the 1 to make an article 1st” - and asked that criticism remain focused on the article rather than the contributor. I acknowledge that the ensuing exchange continued longer than was productive, which is why I ultimately stated that I was disengaging. My ANI request is not based on disagreement over the article's merits. It concerns the repeated personal and motive-based commentary after I asked that it stop, followed by continuation of the same dispute on another editor's talk page. I will leave the diffs and both parties' explanations for uninvolved administrators to assess.

DUBYA18 (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I want to clarify that although my next comment noted that I wouldn't change my mind about my opinion, I didn't mention it again in that draft discussion and only made comments on the article (WP:CIVIL). All these other comments came on my talk page, and I consider them to be personal attacks in a passive aggressive manner (WP:NPA). Regardless of whether you made the article in good faith, which I believe you did (WP:AGF), I said no to believing that you didn't make it because you wanted to be the one who made it. Your engagement with me after the fact was your choice, not mine as all 6 of my comments noted that I no longer wished to continue the discussion (WP:HOUND). ChessEric 09:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Much like DUBYA's entire user page, this post is clearly AI-generated ("I am requesting administrator input") – yawn. Linking diffs that show Eric wanting to vent on somebody's elses talk page isn't a great look when you're simultaneously trying to accuse him of hounding you. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Like what aesurias said, this is clearly just AI garbage, (GPTZero reports 100% confidence that this entire post is AI), and I'm getting real sick of this kind of stuff. To me, it looks like ChessEric has done nothing wrong while this DUBYA guy appears to be using AI to go after people on their talk pages when they say something they (DUBYA) don't like. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Collapsed as AI. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 11:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Clear WP:BOOMERANG. AI and some hounding of their own. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I've already explained why I brought this here and provided the diffs. I'm not going to keep going back and forth over AI scores, writing style, or more assumptions about my motives. The diffs are there, everyone has said their piece, and uninvolved administrators can decide what they think. Unless someone actually needs clarification from me, I'm leaving it there.

DUBYA18 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

One last comment I'll throw out here: the ANI description of this incident failed to mention the 1st of my 6 comments, which stated, "Please read my reply on the deletetion discussion as my attitude and belief on this will not change." I made this comment in an attempt to redirect the conversation back to the draft discussion, where WP:NPA would have been followed. Had that happened, the fate of the article would have continued to peacefully been discussed there, and I may have even apologized for my "nonsense" comment as I never intended to insult anybody or their contributions. However, I instead received more replies that essentially said the same thing each time with the expectation being that I'd see their way and apologize, which I wasn't doing, while ignoring all of my attempts to end the discussion (WP:OWN violation somewhere in there too). I'm not going to let someone come on my talk page and accuse me of something, demand an apology, and get the last word on the topic. I feel that I should have the right to defend myself and that's what I did. Throughout all my comments, I never threatened them, called them out of their name, or use adjectives to insult them. All my comments were based on my observation of their behavior, and now that I know that it was all AI-generated responses, I won't be apologizing for anything I did. At the end of the day, they mentioned a lot of policies, but what they failed to know was this line from WP:OWNTALK: "all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." They came into my talk page and didn't do that, so that got thrown out the window from the start. ChessEric 20:48, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Update: Since my last comment here, there has been a further development relevant to the concern I raised about continued personal scrutiny. At 01:38 UTC on September 7, ChessEric asked Lightbulb Noob to examine some of my larger edits with GPTZero because an AIN report had been opened, saying he wanted "conclusive evidence to support our claim that they use AI." At 03:12 UTC, Lightbulb Noob then posted GPTZero results for several of my edits, my user page, and multiple discussion comments. I am noting this diff because it occurred after this ANI was already underway and involves examination of my broader contribution history rather than the underlying article dispute. I’ll leave its significance to uninvolved administrators. DUBYA18 (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried not using AI? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias: I haven’t used AI to write my Wikipedia contributions. Have a nice day. DUBYA18 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

As I saw someone once say, LLMs have no place on Wikipedia. Also, this comment was reported as 100% AI by GPTZero. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with all of this, but it sounds like there's grounds for a WP:BOOMERANG. Sorry, but I agree that DUBYA's comments appear mostly (if not entirely) AI-generated. No place for that kind of stuff here at all. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 05:55, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have an issue with someone's comment on an AfD, why not just address it directly in said AfD? That's literally the point of it, you can defend your reason for keeping the article in mainspaice while also providing rebuttals to arguments you disagree with. You went onto not one, but two people's talk pages, complained that they disagreed with you, and continued to complain despite their clear attempts to back off from the conversation. You even threatened ChessEric that if he didn't "keep this discussion focused on content, sourcing, and policy" (a discussion you were perpetuating, by the way), you'd start an ANI, which it seems like you went through with. AI-generated or not, accusing someone of hounding when you yourself are much more guilty of it is certainly an argument you could make.

Also, have you considered the perceived exasperation in his "motive attribution" was not because he is a mean person who should get booted off of Wikipedia, but actually because you keep dragging him back into a conversation that he is clearly not interested in continuing? Maybe his comments about both your intentions behind the article and the policy for articles in the weather space do hold some weight because, believe it or not, he has actually been at this longer than you have? Food for thought.   tetradisulfate  08:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

As the Farmers Insurance Group commercial says, "We know a thing or 2 because we've seen a thing or 2." I'll also add that I've done a thing or 2...except use AI because I don't believe in it and despise it (except Neuro-sama). The crazy thing was that they did address the comments in the AfD discussion, but decided to go on our talk pages to further harass us anyway. ChessEric 14:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Propose WP:BOOMERANG for the OP here, especially after they explicitly stated I aven't used AI to write my Wikipedia contributions, when the original post is obviously AI generated. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:02, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

support, clearly AI generated and dubya seems to be the one doing some mild hounding as @Aesurias said reporting someone for hounding using a source that would be gained only by hounding is not a good look. Would be willing to change to a weak support or neutral if enough evidence shows that @DUBYA18 is willing to 1. stop using AI to respond to people and make edits 2. take on constructive criticism 3. differentiate between personal attacks and tips. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 14:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per obvious attempts to hound users for disagreeing with them, and possible serious LLM usage. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 19:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per others above. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Support Per above, getting real tired of this. TornadoEF4 (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose I see no evidence that the "original post is obviously AI generated". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

see this comment GPT-zero and other sites report 100% AI likelyhood. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 13:09, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Even without using tools to detect AI, the original post is chock full of AI tells - such as the first sentence starting with I am requesting administrator input (something almost always generated by AI when you ask it to generate a request on an admin noticeboard); rule of three, eg focused on content, sourcing and policy rather than my motives, experience or competence; and a classic ChatGPT (specifically)-style structure - introduction, details, admission that the OP isn’t a clean sheet, and request for intervention. The consistent formatting of diffs also stands out, although that’s not so much an AI tell… but could well be. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:28, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

"I am requesting administrator input" has never been written on an admin noticeboard in four years of LLMs. The rule of three is good writing, as seen by your choosing to use it in your comment ("the first sentence starting with ... ; rule of three ... ; a classic ChatGPT (specifically)-style structure"). If you see it used across multiple sentences in one post, then you can talk about it being chock full of AI tells. Are we supposed to consider for bad structure and inconsistent diff formatting in ANI reports "human" now? One might ask why you chose above to go introduction, details, request for intervention with consistent diff formatting? Next time I open a report, do I put the introduction last and make the diffs as hard to follow as possible? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It was, but, oddly enough indeed, just once. ~2026-48991-14 (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

"I am requesting administrator attention/review/assistance/intervention", however, has. Multiple times. Different word, but the formula is the same. Admittedly I'm surprised this is the first time "input" came up here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Wow. Amazing. BTW, because I was the one being accused in the ANI originally, I can't vote on the WP:BOOMERANG, can I? ChessEric 21:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Anyone not restricted by some sanction is free to participate including !vote in any discussion but the views of involved editors while generally be down-weighted by any closer. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Surprised I seem to be the first to bring it up but the use of curly/smart quotes is not definitive but always highly suspicious IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure precisely what @Aesurias meant by "Linking diffs that show Eric wanting to vent on somebody's elses talk page isn't a great look when you're simultaneously trying to accuse him of hounding you" but other editors, including those !voting in support of a boomerang above, seem to have taken it as reporting someone for hounding using a source that would be gained only by hounding which is completely silly because if you take a moment to actually look at the diff you'd see that ChessEric's comment was made in the section created by DUBYA, and just under 14 hours after DUBYA made their previous post there. It's not hounding to look at someone's page within a day of your last interaction with them. I would like to kindly ask folks to be a little more careful with their accusations. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The ANI was created after I made that comment in a discussion where the editor in question was doing the same thing there as what they doing on my talk page. ChessEric 23:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User: Guile's Theme's AI use and behavior issues

User:Guile's Theme has been reported here twice for WP:BLUDGEON (). The second incident continued post-report with Guile's Theme challenging a RfC closure that went against their side, which resulted in a TBan proposal for GT. Circumstances surrounding another user's LLM use in the RfC challenge led me to search for possible LLM use by Guile's Theme.

I found that GT has a history of hiding source searches using chatgpt, including a recent edit, and that two of their recent mainspace edits () are detected as 100% AI by Humalingo and WinstonAI, mixed by GPTZero, and human and mixed by Pangram. While it's possible that these are false positives, their attempts to retroactively remove signs of AI use, relationship to Grokipedia, and caginess on the exact nature of how they use AI makes me think otherwise. When I asked if those two edits were AI generated, their response was Did I use LLM improperly? Nope. without any further elaboration and instead launched into their usual aggressive attack pattern.

GT's behavior has not changed since the first or second report. Their intransigent attitude is still apparent at the RfC challenge, where they were warned twice () not to mischaracterize @Esiymbro:'s argument by admin @The Bushranger: unless they wish to be banned. And they still persisted with a follow-up denial argument. They did the same mischaracterization against me here where apparently I complained that they "argued against more senior editors", when the likely comment being referenced in full is None of their sourcing or policy arguments in the og discussion were ever accepted by four separate participating users with significantly more Wikipedia experience for good reason, because they were inappropriate and severely flawed. . Although I did note the editors' greater experience, my focus was that none of them accepted GT's arguments because they were not good, rather than that he should not argue with editors who have been editing longer. This user habitually twists other people's words by shortening, paraphrasing, and mischaracterizing.

I want to make it clear that I know using AI for sourcing is not against Wikipedia policy, but this has been a particularly frustrating encounter knowing that in hindsight, GT's bludgeoning behavior involving textwalls of sources and quotes () were likely all produced using the help of AI. Even if they didn't just copy paste LLM generated content, it is trivial to use the relevant portions as part of their argument, especially quotations and pictures that can be attributed to the sources rather than the LLM. Combined with the narrowly focused and intractable attitude of GT's argumentation style, imo targeted sourcing through LLM prompts in this instance amounts to a misuse of AI. Considering the two detected AI generated edits and their vague explanation of them, I think it's likely that there is also greater use of AI than just sourcing, including rewriting AI generated results or AI polishing in other edits. The result is that even discounting GT's behavior issues, I feel as though I have been put through a massive waste of time engaging with this user as I do with all AI users.

This part is more related to general AI policies

Over the past two months I have had three altercations with AI using editors on relatively niche subjects, two of whom used blatant LLM language in their communication. Although the most obvious LLM users are usually be stopped, frankly it is trivial to use LLM in less apparently offensive ways, including supercharging the ability of argumentative users to spew out lists of sources and quotes. It is only dawning on me now how substantially Wikipedia editing and user interactions have changed with AI. The AI noticeboard is the largest page I have ever visited throughout my entire time on Wikipedia. A third or more of this page revolves around AI use.

One thing I do agree with GT on is that taking issue with sourcing through AI is as stupid as someone in 2000 trying to bad mouth someone for using google search. Yet there is certainly a qualitative difference between using Google search to manually search for individual sources rather than a chatbox offering you a list of sources and their relevant quotations. Even if it isn't direct copy paste of LLM language, AI has substantially transformed discussions and even mainspace editing through the ease of targeted content generation. At what point does it become stupid to "bad mouth" someone who uses AI for mainspace content? Most AIs have a humanizing feature already to bypass AI detectors and from what I've read, AI detectors aren't very reliable to begin with. With the lax rules on AI use on Wikipedia, even blatant LLM users are given warnings before they are banned.

It wouldn't surprise me if many users are already "humanizing" their text or simply rewriting chatgpt prompts since that's the basic Wikipedia editor's skill set anyway. The bar is at an all time low. Is this even an issue worth bringing up on noticeboards anymore? It's beginning to feel like clutter. I'm just wondering if Wikipedia has any provisions or plans for AI use on Wikipedia beyond banning users who consistently copy paste chatgpt after multiple warnings, or if editors who are against AI use should just "give it up". I don't see how inundating noticeboards with thousands of AI reports is sustainable or even desirable when editors can just reword AI results and call it their own. Qiushufang (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

When AI is actually AI (i.e. sapient) and able to operate on the same level as a human, then it will be stupid to "bad mouth" someone who uses AI for mainspace content (since at that point it will be the AI itself contributing). LLMs, despite the wide use of the term to describe them, are not artifical intelligence. They're chatbots. (The distinction Mass Effect made between AIs and VIs (virtual intelligences) may be a good way to look at it, but that's another discussion). A LLM that spits out a list of references may well have hallucinated some. Others may exist but not actually cite the content in question. Until Actual AIs exist and are able to apply the same level of scrutiny to their work as a human can, they are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. (And I suspect the claims of humanizing feature[s]s are the usual overblown self-aggrandizement of AI-bros patting each other on the back.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, that there is a difference between true AI and LLM, and by no means am I saying that "humanizing features" are the same as suggesting that the LLMs are human. Be that as it may, I told Humalingo to "humanize" the two edits by GT that were detected as AI generated. Now none of the AI detectors consider them AI, but rather human. To be perfectly blunt, isn't all this hunting for AI users just culling the lowest of idiots who don't know or can't afford the "humanizing" feature or are too lazy to edit in a piecemeal fashion to mimic human behavior? AKA dumb and lazy people. Qiushufang (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Qiushufang, editors who used Google or other search engines 20 years ago (or yesterday) were always responsible for verifying that any given source was reliable by Wikipedia's standards, that the information that they found and wanted to add was encyclopedic, and that they summarized it in their own words without plagiarism or copyright violations, and that they cited it correctly. These are all aspects of good editorial judgment which is the most important attribute of a productive Wikipedia editor. Exactly the same standards apply when an editor uses any so-called "artificial intelligence" tool to aid their preliminary research. I have discovered reliable sources using such tools and have also found lots of utter nonsense, just as when Google presented opinionated blog posts written by unknown people. Human judgment is still required to separate the wheat from the chaff. The writing of the actual prose content following the fact checking must remain in human hands, at least at present. The challenge is that far too many poorly educated people think that AI can write encyclopedia articles with negligible oversight. This creates a lot of chaos. Cullen328 (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Right, the issue is an uneducated person using AI to make edits based on hallucinations would have obvious edits with examples of such made up sources that you could give examples of in the form of diffs. But Qiushu, despite trawling(or maybe trolling) my user history, has zero examples of such, using only the fact I used chatgpt to get the names/authors of sources that I then downloaded PDFs for and read/checked myself. All Qiushu has done is just move the goalposts as to what his supposed main issues with me is as often as he moves the forum he is shopping for the ban he hopes to achieve against me. This is now the 4th such attempt he has made after the AI board, my AN RFC closure review, and Eysim's ANI post based off the same content dispute regarding the Tang Dynasty map. Guile's Theme (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I do want Guile's Theme blocked on behavioral issues and I regret not being as forceful in my language when Esiymbro reported them at ANI. It is ridiculous that despite multiple warnings by admins, this user has not once moderated their language or shown any hint of changing. Because I was the only one in the og discussion not to directly oppose GT from the start, they constantly evoked my words as a battering ram against other users (). What they consider me turning on them or "shopping for the ban" is really just one disagreement with them on the use of sources , after which all my comments were reframed as a personal attack and attempt to ban them even though they were just basic descriptions of the situation and their behavior (). This is what they consider my attempt to get them banned.

At the last ANI report, they accused Esiymbro of being upset he performed poorly compared to every other particpant in the discussion, was called out his antics, and so he seized on something in my user history to try to get me banned instead. . This user views talk discussions as a blood sport where everybody is in a race. Has anything changed? After the last ANI report, did they drop it after the RfC ended in favor of the status quo? No. Instead they reverted the RfC closure and went to RfC challenge. Did they moderate their aggressively rude behavior at the RfC challenge? No. Admins can't even get a straightforward statement that they will change their behavior. Admins just threaten to ban, they continue with their behavior, and nothing happens.

I believe I was rather even handed in my comments at the last ANI report . It was only during their abhorrent behavior at the RfC challenge, and my realization that they are an AI user, that I was convinced that this user should be banned. Note that throughout these comments they never directly address the LLM edits, even though it would take a simple denial and description of their AI use. I supported an indefinite block on them at the TBan proposal, reported them to the AI noticeboard, possibly socking, and am coming here because yes, literally nothing has changed about their behavior at all. Qiushufang (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Immediate block - It is worth noting that thus far Guile's Theme's only response to this thread has been here where they told Qiushufang to Stay the fuck off my talk page. This was an overt lack of Civility that leads me to believe the only proper recourse at this time is a block, at least until this issue is resolved. What is more, Qiushufang is required to notify Guile of the ANI that they (Qiushufang) opened. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:15, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm operating from a laptop with no mouse atm so I won't be able to answer with diffs and such until later.

But for one, I've seen other editors use such language against people harassing them on their talk pages and it isn't an issue.

For another, I don't need to show civility to someone who is on a bad faith, insult and lie ridden personal crusade to get me banned. He is engaging is harassment, hounding, failing to drop the stick as this is regarding a now 2+ month old dispute he can't drop and was told by an admin in the AN RFC closure review to do so, and is GAMING the system by forum shopping to try to get a editor he has content, if not just a personal, dispute with banned instead of attacking my edits. There is nothing 'civil' about his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Period. After literally WEEKS of the same crap dating back to Eysim's attempt at the same I'm quite rightfully DONE with this. I don't have to put up with endless unsubstantiated bogus accusations and you don't get to treat other editors poorly absent any basis whatsoever and then complain you get strong language to leave me the F alone.

I don't see anything that I have to answer for, more experienced users than Qiushu, who even participated in the original dispute, did not agree with his characterizations of me or his attempts to ban me nor did an Admin art the AN discussion literally less than a week past. His attempts to accuse me ofAI on the actual board for such in mainspace articles was already shutdown and disagreed with. He tried to do the same at the AN discussion which I was, per the admins words, entirely within my right to open.

So what is this if not clearly forum shopping and attempting to gain the system exactly? I'll be opening my own ANI complaint regarding Qiushufang tomorrow most likely if not the day after. Guile's Theme (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

There are some ridiculous claims in the comment above. To begin with, it was Guile's Theme who was warned to drop the stick at AN , not anyone else. Had they done that I don't think any of the subsequent reports would have been made.

Qiushufang was originally the most sympathetic to GT's views out of all participants at the Talk:Tang dynasty discussion and the only one there that went out of their way to seek a compromise with this editor. But when the discussion became heated and Qiushufang attempted to mediate, GT started to question their motives for no apparent reason , followed by repeated personal attacks, for example you seemed to understand perfectly well until you needed to cast aspersions. Then, all of the sudden, confused!, You also seem to suggest you can't remember half the things you do read, which have continued ever since. The discussion between GT and me went down similarly: all the discussion had been about the content and sources before they started to twist my words to question my motive . They were still doing this at the AN thread even after being warned to stop . It is very concerning to see this editor making personal attacks and other belligerent comments without repercussions in almost every discussion they have participated since months ago. Esiymbro (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

What's even more ridiculous is that you can see me trying to reach a compromise even at the RfC challenge but ofc all of this is lost on GT, who immediately replied with the "no you're wrong I'm right" spiel. All the most sympathetic users to GT are the ones who completely stop engagement with them, in that they don't pose any immediate challenge to their views. This is the single most obvious and frankly baffling of their behavior issues, because it remains unchanged throughout two bludgeon reports, a RfC challenge, the TBan proposal, and now this. GT categorically treats every single "opponent" (disagrees with them) as some sort of gladiatorial combatant, even when it's an admin. How is this in any way fit for a collaborative project like Wikipedia? Qiushufang (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned on the AN thread that Guile's Theme seems to have major issues with AGF and im particular with assuming good faith regarding editors of articles to do with Chinese history. I consider that more alarming than possible AITALK violations. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

You can say I have an issue with AGF when you can reconcile that accusation with the fact I have in fact found many examples and an ususal concentration of miscitiations in China related articles I've fixed of which these are actually only a minority of at this point. How is noting that objective fact a lack of AGF? The only reason I even noticed this was because of the work I did regarding Early Turkic history the month before I become invovled in this, which heavily overlaps with Tang history and is what brought the Tang Dynasty map to my attention. You attack the editor instead of the edits to prove your accusation. Who is failing to AGF here exactly?Guile's Theme (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Let me be clear: to look at an under-sourced article on a minor battle during the Tang dynasty and assume a coordinated POV campaign is going on to benefit China such that you present as evidence at AN against two random editors who never even edited that article is not appropriate behavior. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

to look at an under-sourced article on a minor battle during the Tang dynasty and assume a coordinated POV campaign

This is the 2nd misrepresentation from you and you did not apologize for the first on the AN board. I noted those 2 editors had been accused of such independently by multiple other editors with links provided, and I just observed I had done VERY LITTLE on Wikipedia between the end of the RFC/Tang discussion, except that talk page comment and edit, to the AN RFC closure review request where there was suddenly a massive increase in Qiushu's aggression to get me banned which didn't seem to come from anywhere except his supposed retroactive complete revaluation of our previous 6 week+ old interactions which seems... kind of bizarre? How often do you suddenly form a radically different opinion on the exact same conversation over 6 weeks after the fact from when you had it? Yea, I'm going to look for what seem like more rational explanations to me...

So let's be clear; stop with your misrepresentations please. Guile's Theme (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

How am I misrepresenting you?

Both are Chinese users with an extreme preoccupation with Chinese article topics

And Qiushu's aggression against me seems to have risen markedly since I observed this trend in wiki talk page comment and I've subsqeuntly found similar outright miscitiations or misinfo on a dozen articles since regarding metallurgy.

I will note that neither editor has ever edited that page.

So when I say that you entered into evidence at AN an accusation of a conspiracy of pro-China editors based on a badly cited page they never edited - It is based explicitly off the things you said in the diff at the top. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Quoting someone out of context, or incompletely, is a standard example of misrepresenting someone, which you just did. The full quote in context does not say what you are trying to mispresent it as. It isn't like you apologized for your first very clear mispresentation on the AN page so I guess I shouldn't expect you to do so here either...

But again, how often do you radically change your interpretation of the exact same conversation six weeks later? If that can’t be answered, I think it’s reasonable to question the explanation for the stark escalation since I opened the RFC closure review nine days ago. It is also reasonable that I've been thinking and wonderng what it might have been I did or said between the Tang Dynasty RFC and the AN RFC review request that may have caused this and there really wasn't much to choose from. Guile's Theme (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I just remembered that the Battle of Dafei River page where GT made their accusations about a Chinese bias and made their corrections to the content is actually a subject that I briefly covered 8 years ago. I made the same content edit on the Chinese side losing that fight as GT. At that point the battle page reflected that content and I obviously never edited the page. My "turning" on GT is sincerely based on their behavior issues that arose during their RfC challenge. Qiushufang (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Before continuing this harassment against another editor, why don't you give an explanation of your own bludgeoning, false accusations and personal attacks which you have already been asked multiple times to stop?

I have already said I won't reply further in this dispute, so I'll just copy the relevant quotes from the AN discussions for people here to see one example of how GT has attempted to portray me as a Chinese nationalist:

• My original comment at Talk:Tang dynasty . There were two sourced 660s Tang maps present in the discussion up to that point, one in the current infobox that was the focus of the discussion (two versions, same borders), and another more expansive one (yellow map on the talk page). The second map was not even brought into the discussion by me.
• GT, one week ago: He was not actively offering the map as an alternative in that discussion, but it seems clearly implied to be the only alternative map he would consider. (This was after being warned to stop misrepresenting me over the same issue).
• GT, yesterday: Where did I misrepresent you given you have said the ONLY map you are willing to consider as an alternative, whose own maker critized as 'flawed', that likely only a nationalist Chinese would consider valid?. When asked where exactly I said that, he linked to the same diff above.

I have zero interest in continuing this dispute, but it is long overdue that we give uninvolved editors space to offer their opinions, no matter what they think, without disruption. Esiymbro (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Esiym this is actually a great example of the misrepresentations you've been making for weeks.

There were two sourced 660s Tang maps present in the discussion up to that point,

An extreme and blatant mispresentation, the kind that has been pissing me off for weeks to be honest, there were 14 such maps presented in the source survey and i found a 15th by the end all from academic and university publishers and i give the citations later. Why he decides there were only 2 only god knows but he pulls that sort of crap constantly in discussions.

The 2nd bullet point is true, you did say that, it is a fact you called a pretty nationalist map the 'only alternative' to the current one with no real caveats. If you can provide such a Caveat, quote it with a diff, now. If you do, I'll apologize profusely and retract that claim. If not, sorry you don't like your own words. Guile's Theme (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Great, now I'll leave it to the others to fact check whether those 14 maps are "660s Tang maps" and whether I have said that the more expansive map was the only one I was willing to consider as an alternative anywhere in the discussion. Esiymbro (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Why you think maps from only 660 matter doesn't track; the date for the map itself was also in contention and the previous 15 year incumbent map was set in 700 AD. This is indicative of the problem with you; you decide something on your own internally and then act like that decision is a fact and ignore what others say and sources they provide while framing everything in terms of your internal arbitrary decision. No wonder it feels like you are talking past everything I say constantly. Anyway, why not just provide the caveat yourself? Who would know your words better than you? Reality is you have no such caveat. Guile's Theme (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, up until Esiymbro made this comment on the alternative "maximalist" map, the primary map being talked about was the 660 map. GT offered other maps and sources on other dates, but three other users including Esiymbro did not accept them () and preferred the 660 map. The issue of dating later came up as options during the RfC, but not at the point Esiymbro made that comment. It was in response to GT's previous question why should this one interpretation receive the prominence of the lead infobox when the broader body of reliable published maps represents the subject differently? . The issue of the choice of date is moot because the context of the comment was made in answer to why no other source except the one supporting the current status quo map was made, not that they were offering it as an alternative. The other comment by Esiymbro was made in the context of GT considering the status quo map to be the maximalist map, thus he offered an example of what an "actual" maximalist map looked like. Hence why it was strange when GT brought it up as proof that Esiymbro only wanted the map to expand in AN, since at no point did Esiymbro actually consider the "true" maximalist map to be viable in the context of the argument, which was primarily about the validity of sources. Qiushufang (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Qiushu please stop trying to mispresent certain facts.

"up until Esiymbro made this comment on the alternative "maximalist" map, the primary map being talked about was the 660 map."

This is simply untrue, the linked diff from Esiym is dated July 10th, but I posted the source survey and the 14 maps on July 8th.

but three other users including Esiymbro did not accept them () and preferred the 660 map. The issue of dating later came up as options during the RfC, but not at the point Esiymbro made that comment.

This is a similar misrepresentation, I had already made clear by early July 9th in a comment to you that I was looking at dates other than 660 by that point. 2 of diffs you linked are dated to July 1st and July 2nd, a week before I posted the 14 maps/source survey on the 8th. The 3rd diff from Esiym is dated July 9th, but 17 hours after I made that comment to you...

Anyway, I can put the entire issue I had with the Tang Dynasty infobox map in a simple question; If that is supposedly the 'mainstream' view of the Tang dynasty map why are the western light areas in particular not represented in like 95% or so of all academic published maps past and present? Find the diff that answers that please.Guile's Theme (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I didn't include myself among the users. I was the only one willing to entertain a new date and map, but that was not the case with the other users who stuck to the 660 map and source regardless of the conversation we had or what maps and sources you provided. Qiushufang (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Please read the 2nd paragraph in the Maps section of the source survey posted July 8th, I clearly talk about the dates. So everyone should have been aware from that point forward. Guile's Theme (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand that. I'm just providing the context that because the other users had issues with those maps and sources, they stuck to the 660 map and source and that was what the conversation revolved around. Qiushufang (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but diffs from July 1st and 2nd are not context to the reality of the conversation post July 8th. Guile's Theme (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The other context of that diff was that I was arguing that maps for other periods could not be used as evidence against the Infobox map. For people who don't want to click through the many linked diffs, this was mentioned in the same comment as the "alternative map" diff and even more explicitly in an earlier reply, after GT's source survey, where I also noted the problems of his new maps. Compare this quote to the diff: Many of the summarised statements also apparently refer to other periods rather than 658-661. In any case, none of the new specialist texts added here offer maps that are contradictory to the one in the Cambridge History of China. The new maps don't contradict the Infobox map, but they contradict each other.

This is not the forum for content dispute but a citation is needed for the claim that the western light areas in particular not represented in like 95% or so of all academic published maps past and present. No one here can say that they have seen 95% of all academic published maps but a Google search suggests that the claim is almost certainly not true. Esiymbro (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Everything has been said already and ya this is in content dispute territory now and I doubt anybody will read this far. I'd just leave it. Qiushufang (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

If he had thought I only supported 660s maps, it would have been fine. That is content dispute territory and misunderstandings happen often in such a complex discussion. But putting words in my mouth (such as I only support an expansive alternative and that makes me a nationalist) and then making personal attacks based what I did not say, like what he did at AN, is not. That has to be clarified. But yes, I agree, I have already said enough about this issue. Esiymbro (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest, especially as you have a tendency to accuse people of misrepresenting your statemts when they directly quote you and provide a diff to the full comment, that you should provide diffs when you are accusing an editor of making statements that they dispute making. Simonm223 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Already did 9 days ago in the AN post. Guile's Theme (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It is almost funny because even during this dispute I was at AIV and SPI cleaning up a mess from actual ethnonationalist socks in Chinese history articles.

Unfortunately I was not even a bit surprised about these "Chinese nationalist" accusations because persistent personal attacks of this type almost always lead to ad hominem attacks based on ethnicity/nationality. I give GT credit for trying different types of accusations for over a month before moving on to these claims. Esiymbro (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Still waiting for those caveats to the fact that, not by inference but by direct grammatical implication, you called the more nationalist map debunked by its own creator the 'only alternative' to the current infobox map. If you can't provide that then stop bludgeoning trying to get some bad faith last word in. Although, I give you credit for being a good suck up. Guile's Theme (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you understand the distinction between an alternative (that map was literally the only alternative 660s Tang map provided in the discussion) and an alternative that I am willing to consider? Esiymbro (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Since that is a question, no, I don't understand what you are trying to claim. Nor do I understand why you think narrowing it down to only '660' maps is anymore defensible or makes it any less of a misrepresentation because 'only 660 maps count' is something you decided completely arbitarily on your own. Don't think most people would understand what you are claiming either based off the linked diff which doesn't mention 660 at all. What I do understand is that when people try to devolve arguments into semantics it usually is an attempt to create obfuscation. I'll not be responding to Esiym anymore in this entire ANI dicussusion from this point forward. Guile's Theme (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• This should be closed as WP:AN#TBAN proposal is still open. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that it makes sense to keep all discussions in one place. But there are some points in this discussion, as well as the WP:QUICKAE thread that is about a totally separate issue, that go way beyond the scope of my TBAN proposal, so I'm not sure if that is still the best place to discuss any more. Esiymbro (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Is there anything to suggest that the problems with Guile's Theme are restricted to a certain topic or that the TBAN proposal addresses the AI use problems? I argue that the opposite should occur and the TBAN proposal should be merged here since the two bludgeon reports were reported on Incidents first and there's no suggestion that the behavior problems are restricted to a certain topic. Qiushufang (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, AI detectors are unreliable and generally it is advised to avoid referring to them especially at ANI. Secondly, you may bring AI use concerns to WP:AINB - don't mind the backlog, we'd much rather have a record in the archives at minimum. Thirdly, Wikipedians have always been fighting the hopeless fight - if you read back to the early 2000s you had many predictions of doom from the volume of vandals, UPE, governmental influence, etc. and the fact that it is hard does not mean we should abandon our principles (to be clear, referring to verifiability and editor responsibility, no comment on ideological ban on LLMs). I agree that the issue is not being taken seriously enough by the WMF and arguably by a considerable sector of the community and you are always welcome to help out on AINB.

I make no comment on the behavourial issues and have not examined any of the diffs relevant to that. But since there is AI use accusations, I took a look into GT's contribs and did some analysis.

: Bolding is weird but the wording is fluid enough for me to believe this is not wholly AI generated. I would liked to have seen a citation for "Earlier scholarship..." but I don't think that's major. Source is not accessible online for me, not even through institutional libraries, so no source verification is possible. The weird part is the missing author Joseph Needham and the year (Bodleian Libraries gives me 1974 for the edition with Wagner, while Google Books gives 2008 but without Wagner listed as an author on the Books page, but does in the search results. This is consistent with an LLM scraping search, but I don't think this is the way it usually does it.

: This reads a lot more AI. However, the reliance on the same author across two edits is very uncharacteristic AI behaviour. Again I don't have institutional access to some of the sources so I cannot verify claims, for those which I can access: Alan Williams' The Knight... p883 is cited to In Europe, the process of producing wrought iron from pig iron using a blast furnace and fining hearth emerged during the Middle Ages. Relevant passage appears to be

The finery may have been known in principle since the 13th century, but its development to enable plates large enough for armour to have been made, rather than 0.3 kg osmunds, was evidently rather later. A cast-iron producing blast furnace and its associated finery were described by the 15th century Italian engineer Antonio Averlino (known as “Filarete”). The liquid cast iron seems to have been poured into water to “granulate” it, or reduce it to small irregular lumps, perhaps easier to handle than pigs. It would certainly have been easier to melt small quantities of cast iron at a time, but this would only have yielded correspondingly small pieces of wrought iron (osmunds, in fact).

I think it makes sense to call the 15th century "middle ages" and it is not a synthesis that I think an LLM would do.

Gassmann et al is cited to Archaeological evidence indicates the use of blast furnaces in parts of Europe by the 12th and 13th centuries - the paper itself variously states 11th or 12th as a lower bound in different locations, but the statement is true. The weird part is that the latter two sentences are uncited.

: The pacing of this edit is a bit fast. However the edit otherwise exhibits no AISIGNS, moves sections around verbatim in a way that is quite rare for LLMs to do, and is mostly removing content so the speed is believable.

I tried to trawl through the past year of contribs to find anything else worth noting, but couldn't find anything. In particular display a level of understanding and surgicality which I have not seen from any LLM edit from that era. On balance I would argue the preponderance of evidence weighs heavily against any substantive use of LLMs by GT. Fermiboson (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

btw it was already at AINB, I and several others came to the same conclusion as you (not to say other concerns about GT's editing are unmerited, I'm not wading into that) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:28, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

has been reported here twice for WP:BLUDGEON As the person who started the first of those discussions, the bludgeoning was tangential and framing the discussion as a "WP:BLUDGEON report" is misleading at best Placeholderer (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I know your initial intentions were not where the discussion headed, as bludgeon was brought up numerous times in the initial incident report and resulted in a block for the user, which was not what you wanted either based on your initial comment. I framed it as a bludgeon report due to the continued bludgeoning reported at the second incident that I was involved with, which was much worse in terms of bludgeoning compared to what occurred at the Killing of Alex Pretti talk discussion. Hence I chose to emphasize bludgeon as the primary continued issue from the first report. Apologies for misrepresenting your initial report. Qiushufang (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion did reference bludgeoning (as it covered the response to warnings/outreach about bludgeoning) and bludgeoning at the ANI was one reason given for the block, sure. I don't fault you for my being pedantic, I just want to clarify for the record Placeholderer (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@Guile's Theme, do not make substantive edits to your comments after they have been replied to. Correcting spelling/grammar is ok. But you've done a lot of retrospective editing. This edit is an example of a substantive edit that you should not do. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:49, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

No one has replied to that comment yet, but understood. Guile's Theme (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Once someone has added a comment to the thread, you must assume they have read your message and your message affected their comment, even if they don't explicitly call out your comment. By retrospectively editing, you are slipping in stuff that wasn't visible to people who responded between the time of the original comment and your edit. That is just wrong. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:11, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

This was the last comment in this discussion before your first comment above. Which is the same one you linked? Guile's Theme (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that they apparently edited the same comment again Esiymbro (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The conduct displayed by Guile's Theme is, at the very least, obscene and completely unacceptable. I would like to add that, before they made an official challenge to my RfC close at WP:AN, they had unceremoniously reverted it with an inappropriate edit summary []. A quick look at any of the WP:AN, WP:ANI, or talk page threads that Guile's Theme has involved themself in paints a picture of a user that simply does not seem to grasp the collaborative environment of Wikipedia. This user has had an incredibly long tenure of WP:NOTHERE behavior, and I would support any sanction that this discussion would result in, up to and including a CBAN. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 12:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Adding to this to say that, even if the allegations of LLM use prove to be untrue, this user has already shown enough unacceptable behavior for at least a TBAN to be considered, although at this point I'd consider a CBAN given repeated offenses. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 16:07, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be wise for all of the three original disputants to take a step back from this thread and let some other people deliberate. Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Interesting how you chose to make this comment to me when I was pointing out an error someone else was making about me yesterday, and not to any of the 3 most recent comments in this ANI discussion today by Esiym and Qiushu above. Guile's Theme (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Will you please resist the urge to have the last word in every conversation? This is the source of much of the trouble you've experienced, you've been your own worst enemy, and you were doing the same thing in the topic ban section at AN, making things worse for yourself. Just stop, however hard it is to do so. Acroterion (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not having the last word here, 2 other editors trying to ban me had that in this thread on the actual topic discussed and I already said I wouldn't be responding anymore to 1 of them. How is it that even when I'M NOT THE ONE TALKING I'm the one being told to stop responding... Will I be banned just for pointing that out?? Guile's Theme (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's a "no." And therein lies the problem with your conduct, and why people are exasperated by it. Acroterion (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• receives an unfair warning to stop talking when they weren't the one talking*
• points that out*
• well therein lies your problem*

I'm sorry I don't follow. Yea, people saying something unfair or untrue tends to provoke a response. Guile's Theme (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Please be very clear on this: nobody wants to provoke further responses from you here. In fact I think I was clear I think all three of you have already responded plenty. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd support a block just for the bludgeoning here alone, let alone the battleground behaviour presented above. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 12:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

They are still edit warring at Tang dynasty over the dispute tag (after already being reverted by the RfC closer), even reverting my edit that is not related to the discussion... Esiymbro (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Per edit by GT, they are continuing to fight the closing decision of the RfC by continuing to portray the situation as "disputed" and edit warring over it. Qiushufang (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Esiymbro: Making a "compromise" such as this is pointless when dealing with GT. I did the same thing at the RfC by proposing adding "nominal" to the westernmost portion of the map, which they ignored. Please don't do it again as it just further enables GT. This user just takes any leeway as license to continue their behavior. Qiushufang (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Users: Qiushufang and Esiymbro, edit warring & battleground behavior

In my opinion these 2 users, @Esiymbro and @Qiushufang, are probably guilty of some combination of either harassment, hounding, battleground behavior, bludgeoning, and now edit-warring. (Their refusal to allow the disputed tag to stand is the trigger for this complaint.) And if there are issues with one's conduct there are almost certainly issues with the other. They also seem to have a history of working together.

It is very clear from many reliable sources that the Tang Dynasty infobox map is disputed in scholarship, with even an explicit deprecation by one author of that exact map. The RFC regarding this ended 'No Consensus', with an Admin even encouraging more discourse and commenting that, "Where I'd take issue with the close is the assertion that "editors generally agree that the current map has significantly stronger direct sourcing than the proposed alternatives". The sourcing and weight of the competing representations were clearly themselves disputed in the discussion and talk page. There's no consensus here but I'd urge editors to nonetheless keep trying to find common ground in this."

I agree more discourse would be ideal but such is essentially impossible while these 2 users seem only interested in banning me. Nothing about the RFC being closed ‘no consensus’ makes the map disputed in reliable sources any less of a fact either. One thing I've consistently been trying to do as well for weeks now is get outside input into a discussion dominated by topic-area Chinese editors in an effort to ensure there is no LOCALCONSENSUS at play but there is a concerning pattern of retribution whenever I attempt to do so.

I made the RFC for the map, Esiym opened an ANI complaint in less than 24 hrs against me that seems likely to be a product of finding a similar such complaint against me from February when I was a 4 month new editor as it is filled with refrences to such. When I open the RFC closure review, Qiushu and Eysim both launch a new campaign to see me banned but now much more aggressively. I see the disputed tag as part of the same pattern/effort to try to get other editors to come contribute to the topic and not to continue the dispute myself directly and I thus see the attempt to remove the disputed tag an attempt to bury the underlying issue from other would-be particpants which doesn't seem like good faith conduct?

I do not know if it is related but I also spent Sept 1st to Sept 3rd correcting miscitations/misinfo and improving about a dozen articles related to Chinese metallurgy. Then on Sept 4th Qiushu opens both AITalk and SPI investigation posts about me which, just from my perspective, adds to the sense of retribution I’ve been under. I’m also pretty emotionally exhausted by this as the first attempt by these 2 to get me banned dates back like 2 months now and it takes a toll. So however this ends, I'm ready for it to do so please. Guile's Theme (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

This has gone on too long and too far. What is this, the 5th or 6th concurrent noticeboard? GT is impossible to work with and is incompatible with a collaborative project. It appears to me that blocking GT will prevent disruption to the project and it appears to me that GT will continue to disrupt the project for as long as they remain unblocked. Therefore I support a CBAN against GT.

No opinion on the other two editors, other than to say that they have also written too much text on too many noticeboards in recent days. Mikewem (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

LLM use in editing, bludgeoning, non-stop editing of own comments after someone has already responded, incivility in ctops, ever-present assumptions of bad faith, just to begin the list of grievances. Mikewem (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

For one, this is the FIRST ANI post I've ever made so no idea what you are talking about '5th or 6th'. For another, I do not use LLM improperly, that baseless accusation has already been thoroughly dismissed at the actual AITalk page as well as the ANI post also about AI so maybe you should check what you are accusing people of has ANY veracity whatsoever before you wade in. And I've not edited any comments substantively after someone replied to them; you will not be able to furnish any diffs of such although you are welcome to try. I haven't assumed any bad faith, and if I had I probably wouldn't have waited till after being on the receiving end of a 2 month ban campaign to officially launch my own complaint...

Finally I'd point out Mikewem and I have a history dating back to Feburary where we had a rather nasty dispute over an extremely political topic; which aren't topics I usually edit but Mikewen essentially only edits the most political and controversial topics and I don't think I've seen any editor with a greater focus on such. He is unlikely to be a completely unbiased neutral voice on anything to do with me. Guile's Theme (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Mikewem's reasoning, which I 100% sign on to. If Guile's Theme goes with everything, everything does not include being compatible with the English Wikipedia environment. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support I called for a cban of Guile's Theme at WP:AN and absolutely nothing that has happened in the intervening time has changed my opinion on this at all. The WP:ABF issue remains the core one for me. If GT cannot accept that not every editor who disagrees with them is an ideological enemy of the project they shouldn't be editing here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

AN

I've added a section to the AN thread concerning Guile's Theme and potential sanctions. In the interest of reducing sprawl, please comment on a consensus for action there. In the meantime, I've blocked GT from Tang dynasty for a week. Acroterion (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker

Alanscottwalker seems to think that having a contract with an affiliate means that I inherently have a WP:EXTERNALREL, am undermining the encyclopedia, and should not make any edits because it's a conflict-of-interest. I'm not sure how they think it's possible for an affiliate to do everything they are inherently designed for without ever engaging on wiki (, as well as other comments in that discussion, support my assertion). I understand if he doesn't agree with affiliates as they stand, or think specific projects may not be the most efficient use of resources, but this wholesale rejection based purely on who I associate with is disheartening. I'd like someone who is not me to tell him to knock it off, as I'm way too involved in a personal capacity and things have escalated beyond assuming good faith. I'm not undermining the encyclopedia simply because I have a contract with Wikimedia Canada. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

At the very least it seems like Alanscottwalker should get trouted and told to stop. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite accurate summary. When someone discloses a contract being joined to an edit (Clovermoss,. . .I'm a contractor for Wikimedia Canada and I think it's a good idea. . . .), here, creation of a page. It should be addressed there. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Your diff link is broken and goes to an edit screen. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

This link should work: . Just read the whole back-and-forth and I think you'll see what I mean. :( Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

"Thanks, I put replaced the diff. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Does this supposed conflict extend to those of us who are members of Wikimedia chapters? To those of us who have donated to Wikimedia/Wikipedia? To those of us who are active on other Wiki-projects under Wikimedia but outside of English Wikipedia? (This is to say, I don't think generally being an editor on English Wikipedia has any issue if you have a contract with a Wikimedia chapter). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think "members" usually have contracts, "doners" don't. As for other projects, or any off EWP organization, you are either here as their representative for them, or you are not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. @Simonm223 is right, @Alanscottwalker deserves a trout for thinking that being a contractor means you are undermining the encyclopedia. On the other hand, since we're handing out ritual pescatorial abuse, @Clovermoss deserves a minnow for starting out with I'll create it if other people think this is a good idea as well and then proceeding to argue with everybody who didn't think it was a good idea. And a second minnow for thinking any of this was worthy of ANI. I don't know what the exchange rate is for minnows vs full-fledged trout, but I think everybody needs a time-out. RoySmith (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Having a conversation is not arguing. Trying to understand how to make the most people happy with the least objections is a skill. One that should be valued. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I also don't think it's fair to both sides this when I've done nothing wrong and bringing someone to a noticeboard when the situation is not being resolved despite my best efforts is what one is literally supposed to do. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

OK but my issue was not having a contract, it was having a contract with an affiliate, and at length arguing for a page creation for affiliates. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I should perhaps also note that Clovermoss was getting pushback for this new page creation, from multiple users, and kept posting, and posting, so it was only then that I followed up on the contract issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

You make it seem like asking clarification to understand what specifically people are objecting to makes your actions justified when they do not. People also aren't opposed to a page being created, just specifically having it be a subpage of the Village Pump, for various reasons. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Since we are here, why did you opt yourself out of the more than a decade convention of using a role account for edits you are paid to make? We had a whole arbcom case about this issue with the WMF and they made it an internal rule. I get you aren't working for them, but mixing your edits on an admin account is certainly what the kids call "a look" --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:45, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you link the arbcom case in question? I'll give it a look. I was under the impression that this practice was common for people who were previously active editors and not joining an affiliate from outside the movement (I can provide several current examples). Making a role account simply to create event namespace pages for meetups etc seemed like extreme overkill, especially when my contract was only for a few months. I also wanted to be easily pingable if anyone I met at these meetups needed help. I don't really see a distinction between that and normal mentorship because the types of questions people ask when they're new are pretty much identical. People are free to ask me questions any time, but I'd rather we refocus this to what the actual issues are here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

The announcement that ended the 2014 case. I think this is directly related to why we are here. Mixing your paid and non-paid roles creates confusion and contention -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:58, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll read it, but that's not why we're here at all. I've explained multiple times that I am not doing this because of my contract. My desire to have a space where people can talk to each other is something I'd want regardless of if I had said "yes" a few months ago. I doubt it would've mattered to Alan if I had a separate role account given his commentary. Although at this point I feel like it'll be an uphill battle to convince anyone in those spaces that they should come here where people will attack your character for daring to be part of an affiliate.

I also don't think it inherently causes confusion if people associated with affiliates use their normal accounts all the time and this is the first time it's popped up as a talking point since 2014. The userpage declaration should be enough. But if it isn't, it makes sense for you to write an RfC for that instead of blaming me for following a social norm. If you want to talk about this more, my talk page is open. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

The social norm for, at least, 12 years is for all paid edits for the WMF or an affiliate to exist on a separate account. I would argue that it is an older social convention because the WMF had to force it on a small number of old-timers 12 years ago. The fact that a small number of people fly under the radar and violate the norm doesn't make it okay for you to do it with you account with +sysop. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:21, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not a small amount of people, I'd say more people edit without role accounts than with, including several sysops. Do you want me to provide examples? It'd be nearly impossible for them to be flying under the radar with how active they are on-wiki. I think you are mistaken about what the social norm is. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are looking to die on this hill rather than admit your ignorance of the norm and making User:Clovermoss (WMCA) blue, so be it. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:00, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea wholesale, but I have a general principle against people claiming things to be true that aren't. I'm also somewhat wary of implying my connection with WMCA is closer than it actually is. As I've said repeatedly, I'm just a passing contractor and not full time staff. I don't really have any control over what everybody else works on/decides to do. I'm fairly independent. But if a rule that like was to actually be proposed through an rfc and there was a consensus for it, I'd respect that.

I'd also ask that I not be singled out, because as I've said, there's several admins that would need role accounts if what you're saying has truly been the case for the past 14 years:

• Z1720 (he has also run events with support from Wikimedia Canada, although I think these were only small grants to cover the events themselves. And he's an arb, which is even more powerful than a sysop).
• Pharos (who is also a Wikimedian in Residence)
• Giantflightlessbirds
• Pigsonthewing
• Rosiestep
• Cullen328 and Ocaasi (no affiliate connections that I'm aware of, but both have openly advised for pay, which you don't even need to declare to follow our COI/UPE policy).

I can give more examples if you'd like. I have a difficult time believing no one has noticed this before. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

None of these people made edits on behalf of an affiliate in a paid capacity. See the the WMDE, WMUK, and WikiEd accounts. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:29, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely correct? I was under the impression that Pharos was paid and Giantflightlessbirds were paid for their Wikimedian in Residence positions, although I know some people do that unpaid. But the distinction doesn't really matter here, the point is that they were all involved with affiliates and Alan seems to think that's contrary to what Wikipedia is for.

Maybe the distinction does matter to you. If enough people agree with you, I'd genuinely consider creating a role account. Personally, I don't see the distinction between paid/unpaid to be all that meaningful, beyond the fact that I can do more editing if I'm not as worried about having some other full time job while also having a bunch of responsibilities here that might put a strain on me financially because I'm declining extra shifts for my hobbies. It's possible that someone might do things that go against the interests of the community if their job has a competing agenda, but I don't think that has to be the case for affiliates, and if there is ever is a situation like that, the affiliate should be the one to stop. And if it ever came down to that, my committment to editing Wikipedia long-term in good standing matters to me more than being a "professional" Wikimedian. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

While not disagreeing with your other points, I'm not an admin on this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either but I have been funded in the past by the New Zealand chapter as a Wikipedian in Residence. At one point during that I was also the Vice President of Wikimedia Aotearoa NZ (but this was an unpaid role). In NZ and Australia contract employees of the Wikimedia chapters don't have a separate account for edits they are paid to make. Having to run two accounts seems to be an internal rule for full-time employees of the WMF and some chapters, and even then is not always observed: User:BindiS is employed full-time as the head of Wikimedia Australia and does not have a second account. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Coming from my perspective as an autistic person, norms should be written down, and not assumed that they are known. I think we're splitting hairs when it comes to Clovermoss, who is a part-time contractor. I will admit that I'm not impartial when it comes to her. Abzeronow (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Affiliates are groups of Wikipedia volunteers with some external organization and sometimes staff. Saying "I'm a Wikipedian who works for an affiliate and realized there wasn't a place to talk about the stuff we're doing in projectspace" does not require the same level of side-eying assumptions of bad faith as some TikTok influencer trying to promote themselves in articlespace. Yes, to nobody's shock, the people who devote their time to improving Wikipedia and sometimes do so through an affiliate like to tell other Wikipedians what they've been doing. That is the extent of what we're talking about. Doesn't mean there's anything to do about it at ANI (my recommendation would just be not to respond), but yes, Alan's evil eye is misplaced. (Yep, I've had some sort of connection to several affiliates over the years, if that's how you'd like to view this comment.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

What I think you are missing is discussions of apparent WP:COI are explicitly not assumptions of bad faith, they are descriptions of a situation, eg., 'you have an contract, you want to make an edit that appears to benefit that class of contractor'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

How is accusing me of undermining the encyclopedia without evidence not an assumption of bad faith? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

COI editing is a problem, we have a whole guideline on it including apparent conflicts (which involves the editor realizing the situation a contract raises), we can't let it go just because it is you, that would undermine the encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

You would probably get further in this thread if you were less abrasive, ASW. Claiming that CM is undermining the project is, at best, unhelpful hyperbole -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:27, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, what I said was, "you are undermining the encyclopedia, if you can't keep your external relationships, like your contracts, where they belong, not here" and what I meant was, we need to seperate roles per guideline, so as not to undermine the encyclopedia. I apologize for curtness. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I haven't done anything that goes against WP:COI, I've been following it to the letter the whole time. So do you think it would've been fine if I had done these edits under a role account (even if that is completely irrelevant to why I was actually starting a thread and I only brought it up when someone was thinking of me as not understanding what affiliates might be open to)? Because I got the impression you think that anyone from an affiliate making edits at all is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I think, I wanted you to realize, your contract creates an apparent conflict when the proposal is in benefit of affiliations you contract with. Part of the reason guideline wants that realization is it wants editors who may raise on apparent conflict to not repeatedly push the conversation against all others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. I also don't understand why you're so insistent about why creating a page regarding updates for affiliates and one that would benefit volunteers (and not me personally) and would be completely optional on both sides needs to be treated with the utmost suscipiscion. I had a conversation with people and we discussed it. I learned that people have strong feelings about what gets to be a Village Pump subpage, but that If you started it in Wikipedia space, I'm doubtful anyone would bring it to MfD. It just wouldn't be a Village Pump during that time. I was okay with that and agreed with Roy about how it should be linked. It was the perfect compromise for me. But then you kept making increasingly hyperbolic comments about me undermining the encyclopedia in the background, until I had to come here. I defended you at first precisely because I think people should have more leeway when it comes to anything even close to touching COI, but you crossed lines. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Those later comments by and to others at best happened 'in the midst' and not in what was happening between us. And the issue remained about how even with not actual COI, the issue is raised, and the same problem, already demonstrated there, of repeatedly pushing for the new VP page for affiliates. As an aside, it is rather beside the issue who else may benefit, the issue remains, your contract was for outreach, this new VP looked like outreach. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

If we're looking at the timestamps, those comments came before the ones you made I took issue with. If we're being quite literal and saying that no one intervened between the two of us beyond the one editor telling you you need to assume good faith and my initial pushback/defense of you, you'd be right. But the comments about the compromise were made chronologically earlier than most of our back-and-forth. I would've been able to spend all this time actually working on Wikipedia:Affiliate's corner if I hadn't spent it trying to understand what your deal is. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

You could create such a page on Meta wiki (without this drama). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd feel even less welcome on MetaWiki than I would here. I've had a very recent bad experience there. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

You seem (including in the linked discussion) to be mistakenly applying article-space policies about CoI and WMF-account editing to non-article space pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:48, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Responding to being named by Clovermoss in the above list: I have never been paid by an Affiliate. Since April 2017, via the Wiki Education Foundation, I serve as a volunteer (unpaid) Wikipedia Visiting Scholar at Northeastern University. During the period of April-June 2017, I was a part-time WMF paid contractor for the Gender Diversity Mapping research project. I've received scholarships to attend various wiki events; often, I pay my own way. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, just trying to point out that plenty of people active with affiliates do not have role accounts (although I'm of the opinion that more people should be paid when they are doing the considerable amounts of work that these roles require. I feel like having to spend one's own money to be have these opportunities and the privilege to do them unpaid can be somewhat classist or ageist in practice). When you had a contract role with the WMF, did you have a separate account? I don't care either way, but if you didn't, it adds some weight to my arguments that contractors are inherently in a more precarious position (especially if the WMF doesn't require it for theirs post-2014). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I did not have a separate account when I made the ten edits associated with the project. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I think saying someone who had been honoured as Wikimedian of the Year in 2024 "undermining the encyclopedia" misses the mark by a wide margin. Abzeronow (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Let's be honest, if they weren't Wikimedian of the Year, there would likely have been a discussion about a p-block from project space if not more broadly for some of their conduct over the last two years. Star Mississippi 17:02, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying anyone should treat me better because of an award (and I wouldn't want them to), but I'd really appreciate if you didn't throw around completely unfounded accusations like that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to strike or remove my comment if you'd like, but I think we both know it's not unfounded. This is not a one off situation. I'd feel even less welcome on MetaWiki than I would here. I've had a very recent bad experience there. I think you mean well @Clovermoss but it is really past time for you to stop digging. Star Mississippi 17:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not digging to defend oneself and to advocate for Wikipedia to be less a toxic place. As for your aspersions, I'll let someone else strike it and hopefully warn you not to repeat the same behaviour in the future. If you think you have evidence that I'm so problematic that I should be blocked, do something about it instead of attacking my character. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Bringing up her award was meant by me as evidence of her high moral character. Clovermoss keeps giving to the encyclopedia, it shouldn't have taken until this year for English Wikipedia to have an article on Strollers, but thankfully now that gaping coverage hole has been filled. She keeps making an effort to improve Wikipedia and Wikimedia in general. So I'm just going to try to just say that I see her efforts and appreciate her efforts to make things better. Abzeronow (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

That's actually astounding that strollers was only created this year Katzrockso (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It was part of baby transport since around 2004. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• We want affiliates to engage with us. Clovermoss is essentially asking how affiliates should best communicate with other editors here, and suggesting one option. That is not COI editing, and is the sort of discussion that would benefit greatly from those involved in affiliates. We're lucky here in that Clovermoss is well known to us and knows the system, that is not going to be the case for many affiliates. I am also unfamiliar with Guerillero's note of a convention that those outside the WMF in paid roles need a separate account. If that is a desirable convention, then there is a lot of work we need to be doing both on our side here and with relevant affiliates/other bodies to make that clear. CMD (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  +1. Also, I fail to see where the conflict is in this conflict of interest. On the one hand, affiliates want better communication between affiliates and volunteers. On the other hand, Wikipedia wants better communication between affiliates and volunteers. That sounds like interests that are aligned, not in conflict. That's quite different from, say, the conflict between the profit-motive interest of a for-profit corporation, and the encyclopedia interest of Wikipedia (the typical COI).

  The more I think about it, the less it makes sense. If a paid WikiEd instructor makes a suggestion for improving the WikiEd project pages, or a paid Wikipedian in Residence makes a suggestion for improving WIR project pages, is that a COI? Are they supposed to use a role account? Why would it be any different for an affiliate contractor?

  And I looked at the arbcom case from 12 years ago that was suspended in part because the WMF announced it would start using "(WMF)" role accounts. AFAICT, that was about a botched software rollout, and the conflation of individual and work accounts by some WMF staffers led to some confusion. If the affiliate contractor were deploying changes directly to the MediaWiki software, or speaking officially on behalf of the affiliate organization, then I'd say yeah, role account makes sense. But this situation isn't comparable to that one. Levivich (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  I essentially agree with everything Levivich and CMD say. It is entirely possible for an outside organisation, whether for profit or otherwise, to have overlapping or even shared goals with Wikipedia. This is obviously not always true, but when it is it benefits us and them to embrace this (it's not a zero sum game), and this requires assuming good faith unless there is a reason to do otherwise. Hounding people and assuming bad faith, as done by some here, is a great way to damage the encyclopaedia. It's a bloody good thing that Clovermoss has been around enough and developed a thick enough skin that she hasn't been hounded off the project for attempting to improve things - just think how much good we've lost because we've driven off others in similar circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  I similarly agree. Paid and COI editors are subject to far more scrutiny than volunteers, which is fair enough, but when these editors are affiliates, I notice that they are still treated as though their goals run counter to that of Wikipedia. I'll also note Cullen's comment below about how so many people were quick to not assume good faith about his own experience helping people get started on editing. I don't think treating affiliates this way falls under AGF - we shouldn't be assuming bad faith over someone bringing in new editors, just because they are being paid to do so. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  IIRC, this was one of several cases that came down to "when is someone affiliated with the WMF acting as a member of the WMF and how do we know that". If that's applicable here, then there needs to be some policy and documentation around that. Mackensen (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  I also fail to see why WP:EXTERNALREL was invoked, as I don't see how affiliates can be considered "external" to Wikipedia any more than the WMF. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• I am commenting only because I was pinged. Yes, in the 2022 to 2023 timeframe, I did a small amount of paid Wikipedia related training and consulting work, all of which was off-Wikipedia. I announced this in advance at the admininistrator's noticeboard and on my userpage. All of those paid activities were entirely off-Wikipedia and I made precisely zero edits for clients. I assisted clients with understanding and properly complying with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I earned approximately US $1200 in total for all of this work and it was #4 in my various income streams, significantly behind #3. My other income streams are entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. I have been self employed for 33 years. In late 2023, I was subjected to an often hostile debate about my off-Wikipedia activities at the Village pump (policy) that lasted nearly three months and approached the length of a novel. Much of the commentary included outlandish, evidence free speculation about all the unethical and nefarious activities that I was probably engaged in. Editors concluded that I must have been training people to circumvent Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when I was actually training them to comply fully and ethically. This process was deeply disappointing and demoralizing to me. I was heartened, though, by the fact that roughly half of those who commented said they saw no evidence of wrongdoing on my part. But many editors were quick to throw AGF out the window without a shred of evidence, and assume that I must be up to no good. A few people said that no one would possibly pay me to be told that they are not notable and not eligible for a Wikipedia article when that is exactly what happened in some of those cases. So, I will make only one comment about this particular dispute. Assuming good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary is an important behavioral guideline. It is essential to editor retention. It is both moral and kind. Please do not put people through the wringer of accusation and interrogation without clear evidence. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thus whole conversation is a prime example of Sayre's law: the discussion is so bitter because the stakes are so small. Come on, does anyone really think either Clover or any of the half dozen highly respected editors in that list are anything other than an absolute gift to Wikipedia? Does anyone really think any of them are here for marketing? Let's not tear out each other's throats over trivialities. --GRuban (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Given Star's comment above, I doubt they agree with you. And Cullen's comment about what he went through in the past shows the importance of why these things matter. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• As an admin who has previously engaged in paid or COI contributions (and has received some monetary scholarships to travel to conferences), my overall experience has been the opposite of Cullen328. I think I was only challenged about my onwiki contributions twice, and in both cases I think I was adequately able to explain why my contributions did not fall (or did fall) within the COI policy (once in relation to my university, once in relation to my GSoC internship). Philosophically speaking, I think the main thing the (enwiki) community does not like is opaqueness/appearance of lying; if you list all your work and contributions out in the open and are willing to draw strict boundaries on where your work begins and ends, community members (to my understanding) are fairly willing to work under the constraints. -- Sohom (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
• I'll be direct. Clovermoss is a decent person and great editor. Any questions about her work with Wikimedia Canada can go to her talk page. Star Mississippi's vague insuation against Clover is not helpful and seemingly related to anything mentioned explicitly here. If Star has something meaningful to contribute, evidence would be nice. "some of their conduct over the last two years" is not an actionable description of clover's alleged misbehavior.
  As for ASW, they should probably chill. This isn't WP:UPE and shouldn't be treated with such gravity. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:26, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:DylanMReed

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

This concern arises from a combination of behaviors and edit history with respect to articles on upcoming Indian films, an area that has historically had an overabundance of questionable activity. Specifically, I am looking at the edit history of Draft:The Paradise (film). Because several article histories have been merged into this title, it may not be immediately clear, but there have been several times in its history that it has been "started" as a new page, the most recent two with only slightly altered phrasing:

First, by User:Bebdoben, who has since been blocked as a sock of User:BluntIsBlunt, in a now-deleted version under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Draft:The_Paradise_(2026_film).

The Paradise is an upcoming Indian Telugu-language action thriller film written and directed by Srikanth Odela and produced by Sudhakar Cherukuri under SLV Cinemas. The film stars Nani and Sonali Kulkarni, with music composed by Anirudh Ravichander and editing by Naveen Nooli.

First, by User:AgentPanda (who I am not raising a concern about here), who created the page in March 2025 with the opening line:

The Paradise is an upcoming Indian Telugu-language period action film directed by Srikanth Odela and produced by Sudhakar Cherukuri under Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Cinemas. The film stars Nani and Sonali Kulkarni.

Second, by User:2401:e120:202c:54:b096:eec8:1574:c0e, who created the page anew in August 2025 with the opening line:

The Paradise is an upcoming Indian Telugu-language period-action film directed by Srikanth Odela and produced by Sudhakar Cherukuri. The film stars Nani (actor) and Raghav Juyal in lead roles. It marks the Telugu debut of Juyal.

Third, by User:DylanMReed, who also created the page anew in July 2026 with the opening line:

The Paradise is an upcoming 2026 Indian Telugu language film directed by Srikanth Odela and produced by Sudhakar Cherukuri. The film stars Nani, Sonali Kulkarni, Mohan Babu, Raghav Juyal in lead roles.

Aside from the date and genre and a reordering/addition of a few actors, the second and third versions contain the identical items of phrasing {{tq|"The Paradise is an upcoming [...] film directed by Srikanth Odela and produced by Sudhakar Cherukuri. The film stars Nani [...] Raghav Juyal in lead roles".

I asked the editor about this and they denied being aware of the previous draft, and further said "Not only me, but none will see any similarity between both. That is a stretch far for me to believe. My concern was multiplied by the fact that shortly after I made this query, User:Spartaz cautioned this editor on their talk page about their conduct in the AFD and DRV for the same film. The fact that this same subject has previously been the subject of socking and a G5 deletion as a creation of a blocked sock, and that User:DylanMReed as a new editor would immediately dive into this specific topic with the specified language, and engaging in the cautioned conduct, leads me to conclude that shenanigans are afoot. BD2412 T 18:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Was just coming to file my self after this AfD comment, conduct that Spartaz warned DylanMReed about prior to them agreeing and then blanking their talk page. 26 page creations by a new editor on pages that have been affected by sock activity has also raised my eyebrows although user has denied using multiple accounts. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

On further investigation, I would also note that the same editor has been involved in a similar dispute with respect to Vibe (film), which is also an article on an upcoming Indian film that has been recreated by multiple accounts under different titles (see the deletion history of Vibe (2026 Film)). BD2412 T 20:19, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes. While Vibe (2026 film) existed, user crated Vibe (film). Vibe (film) was moved to draft. DylanMReed moved it back to mainspace saying "sources are present" and it was a duplicate topic already in main space. I redirected the title since the 2026 version was under deletion discussion, but DylanMReed removed that redirect and a day later moved it to draft after it was called out in the other deletion discussion. Another user moved it back to mainspace a few days after the other AfD closed as delete so we are back at AfD now. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

For completeness, the editor who cross-created the now-deleted Vibe (2026 film) was User:Itsharshitt28, who was warned by User:Finngall for a similarly disruptive pattern of editing behavior on this subject. At this point I would be inclined to WP:DUCK block the lot of them. BD2412 T 18:53, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

The editor has been back and fails to engage in this ANI, despite threatening to file their own ANI against an experienced editor a few days prior. Despite being warned about their AfD behavior being disruptive and being notified of this ANI, they have twice again in engaged the behavior doing the exact things they were warned about it. I would say at this point a topic ban from AfD discussions would be warranted until they show their willingness to work within a collaborative environment. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Just to close this loop, I see that the experienced editor to whom you refer is User:Cavarrone. With respect to a possible tban, I think that would be warranted for that specific situation, but I am more concerned with whether there are multiple accounts being used by or under the control of this editor. BD2412 T 18:36, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully they will choose to engage to explain that as I have my suspicion of that as well. I pinged them in the deletion discussion to notify them since they have edited there since the ANI was filed. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

As I was mentioned/pinged about , my comment there was not specifically directed towards DylanMReed but was more generally about the broader context of the Paradise articles in an historically problematic, COI and sock-affected area like Indian cinema. That said, seeing all the elements here, particularly DylanMReed basically playing the same role with the Vibe article as with the Paradise, for sure raises a lot of questions for me. DylanMReed obviously is not a new editor: their 11th edit, on their fifth day of editing, is a PROD which cites WP:NPROF. The very next day, they started creating film articles. --Cavarrone 21:07, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

You are very much wrong. As an experienced editor (as said by above two editors) by accusing me as a sockpupet, you are igonring that one can learn a bit before editing Wikipedia. You are also denying that one might have previous experience of editing Wikipedia as an IP user. In both cases, I can't prove what I am not.

The above two editors were replied well about their queries in my talk page as per Point number 1.4. Still they have raised the same here, so I didn't want to repeat again.

But you have something more serious allegation against me, my last 2.0 is to ask you to go to Sockpuppet Investigation against me.

Sorry again, I have no way to prove that I am not a sockpuppet. You should prove. Not me. I am concluding my first and final statement. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Grandiose theatrical statements about what you can and cannot do are quite regular deflections when socks are challenged so why don't you cut to the chase and explain what prior editing experience and knowledge you had before registering this account. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Is there any way to prove that I have prior experince of editing Wikipedia as an IP user? If there is the way then guide me. And yes, I edited earlier as an IP user with my Android phone before switching to iOS. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 16:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that it is implausible that the two quoted passages were created, with their exact word order choices, completely oblivious to each other. Only reasoning would be that you have experience editing Wikipedia in those topics. You seem to admit here that you edited as an IP before this account. Why wouldn't you have made that edit as an IP?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I have been around long enough to see implausible things happen, but in this case my concern was aroused by the editor's overly defensive response to the question, which was to deny that there was any similarity between the lines. A case of thou dost protest too much. BD2412 T 20:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Conduct of this nature was raised above by another admin and I will concur that this is typical of the sock farms in this topic space. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that I requested one of the AfDs that was circumvented by DylanMReed to be re-opened after non-admin closure. Probably not worth it since the film releases in four days but if an admin wishes to give an opinion there it would be welcome. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I would assume good faith. However, WP:DUCK Ar1201u1 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Are we able to have a checkuser take a look? If the accusation is that they are a sockpuppet specifically, then this should probably have been opened at WP:SPI anyway. guninvalid (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is just one aspect of the concern here, since other behavioral concerns have been raised. A checkuser would have the advantage of looking at IP addresses, but those are often not helpful with cases of editors sophisticated enough to know to use multiple IPs, and in any case are not needed for a WP:DUCK block, which can be initiated here. BD2412 T 18:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a block is warranted here. Creating suspect drafts is not itself a reason for blocking, and two comments on the same AfD don't really prove a pattern of behavior, at least not one worth anything more than a stern talking-to. It is disheartening to see an apparently experienced editor behaving suchly, but unless there is a longer history of this behavior to be traced, I'm not seeing the need for a block. Blocks need to be WP:NOTPUNITIVE. If @DylanMReed were to be blocked, which I still don't think they should be, it should be only from mainspace and draftspace, as I see it. guninvalid (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you would be right except there was a warning from an admin, the user agreed not to continue, then went right back and continued. That is a pattern of behavior outside of just creating similar drafts. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the WP:SOCK connection here. The draft is indeed similar, but it's also just a stub with no real content, easily declined at WP:AfC for nosource. The text is similar, yes, but they're all about the same thing going over the same topic. If I had 10 different editors write a brief lede for an upcoming Indian film, they'd all be pretty similar too. guninvalid (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I would agree, but that would be 10 "experienced" editors, showing the user has likely edited Wikipedia in the past. They also elude to using an IP address, then bait editors to prove it. On the CU front, the farms editing in this specific topic are well aware of CU and have been actively avoiding it. As such, not sure a CU would do much good. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It seems I am going to be blocked under prejudice while the thread OP and supporting editor's nquery was answered at my Talk page. But they are not satisified and brought this to ANI. Well, respecting the ANI, I must say that most film articles/drafts start with XXX film is a xxxx - language film directed by xxxx and produced by xxxx... stars x, y , z... in roles."

I am unable to get why this common editing went under a wp:duck editing while most filmd's/novie's LEDE starts like that.

I request to re-consider my replies to @BD2412 and @CNMall41 at my talk page. They are experienced editors, still they provoked me and hunted my edits and now forcing me to admit myself as a sockpuppet which I am not.

I am just editing and creating pages which are so common to edit.

But if any Administrator wants to block me as a sockpuppet, please inform me for which user I am sockpuppeting. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:55, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Gazda1970 - no communication, and continuous issues

Gazda1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a talk page littered with warnings going back to 2016 for everything from disruptive editing, unsourced content to section blanking and edit summaries. Their last edit to their talk page has been to make an unblock request in 2023 when they were caught by a proxy. Since then 30 edits have been made to their talk page, and they haven't reacted to a single one. Equally concerningly, they aren't reacting to any of the issues being raised. They have umpteen warnings about adding unsourced content, including manual messages where they were pinged, and yet just today they make yet another unsourced edit. Can we perhaps get an article space block until they dig their head out of the sand and start addressing the concerns editors have? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Do they edit on computer or mobile because I used mobile before and it took me a while to find the talk page. shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:54, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU is very much an issue, but none of their edits are tagged as mobile… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

If they aren't on mobile, then possibly article space block and wikimail them so that the get the hint. shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:02, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Gazda made the first contact with another editor since 2023: diff

@Danners430 shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Not exactly the most pleasant of replies, especially given they didn’t source their edit… and especially concerning that it’s taken them being brought to ANI to finally communicate. @Gazda1970 - given this is at ANI now, could you please join the discussion regarding your lack of communication? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:56, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

To summarize, Gazda's been making WP:PERSONALATTACKS against users, and not once did they even bother to read even one single paragraph from WP:CIVIL. I'm not sure why I'm saying this, but in my opinion, we should block Gazda if they don't even acknowledge what they've even done. I'm astonished that they'd even do such a thing. @Gazda1970, could you at least leave a reply? No one knows why you're refusing to reply to anyone. It's like a grizzly bear slapping a guy and then refusing to interact with anyone thereafter. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 12:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey. I don't know what to answer. If you think I broke the rules, sanction me. Although I feel that some attacks on me were unfounded. I try to work according to the rules. I'm not denying that he only once did something that was outside the framework of the community.

P.S. I didn't see the messages Gazda1970 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Didn't you personally attack us by questioning us about life? If that's the case, you should be liable for the "no personal attacks" rule.

Please don't make personal attacks, as they're strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 23:27, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

This seems like WP:UNCIVIL and WP:NPA to me. Qiushufang (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

It is, and I've warned them as much. See discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes, the airplane/airport part of Wikipedia makes me regret that humanity ever mastered heavier-than-air flight. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I was a teenage plane spotter. It used to be the nerdiness of the hobby that made me reluctant to admit to being one, but now that I have outgrown that it is the behaviour of some of my former co-hobbyists. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Babe wake up, new Phil Bridger lore just dropped. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Spotting teenage planes sounds like a niche interest. Narky Blert (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

So that's why I was never any good. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I prefer railfanning. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 08:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

"Phil Bridger's teenage years had a tinge of darkness. From a back alley dealer, he got information about a secret United Airlines flight to Dubuque, Iowa, that Big Highway didn't want to appear in reliable sources about the Bradley International Airport in Hartford, CT. This information turned out be a gateway drug, and next thing he knew, he was sitting on English Wikipedia, staring into middle distance with glazed eyes as he listened to Jane's Addictions Ritual de lo Habitual while freebasing a table List of Paperback Bestsellers Sold by Hudson's in Airports in the United States." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: It turns out we have no article on the concept of staring into the distance, middle or otherwise. I have started: Draft:Staring into the distance to cover this. BD2412 T 20:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

That's actually a bit surprising! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

?~2026-49642-87 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49642-87: Linked in the draft, as a very narrow case of the concept. BD2412 T 12:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The way it was written it reads as there is no single article regarding the mentioned concept at all, and no matter the distance. As there were at least one such article, I, and another editor who read it the very same way, but later removed their reply, provided an example. Later I checked the Draft link and saw that it is already mentioned there, yes. If you want, I could remove my message too. ~2026-49772-80 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Can a responsible admin please close this discussion? I think it's getting out of hand. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 23:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Temporary Account adding unsourced content to a page.

~2026-48920-53 has been adding unsourced content to Anis Hadj Moussa over the last 10 or so minutes, and in that time i've reverted 5 edits (WP:IAR) and given them 4 warnings, and they have continued. Looking at their contribs, it looks like they are doing similar things to other pages. I suggest at least a topic ban from sports. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυեᵀᵃˡᵏ 02:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Aaand they've kept going. Also it appears that they are being WP:UNRESPONSIVE, as they have not used the edit summary on any of their edits or replied to any of my warnings. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυեᵀᵃˡᵏ 03:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

And another here. Also it just occurred to me that I forgot to add the diffs in question in my first comment so here they are: 1 2 3 4 5. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυեᵀᵃˡᵏ 05:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

These are somewhat hard to evaluate because in many cases the unsourced edits are being made to unsourced content. It may be worth trying a manual message, asking where they are getting their information from, as they are dating at a quick look a lot of the recent edits to 4 September. That would at least give something concrete to respond to in the case of a WP:TCHY-style block. CMD (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah looks like they've made a whole bunch of unsourced BLP edits. In cases like this, I would advocate for an article-space block until we get some communication from them. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

The repeated unsourced edits despite warnings are problematic so I would support an article-space block unless the editor begins providing sources and communicating with other editors. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd ask them myself, but I feel like they'd be less inclined to respond to me than someone else given that I have reverted 6 of their edits, given them 5 warnings, and posted this ANI discussion. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυեᵀᵃˡᵏ 23:22, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Just found the source they used. At least it's not a hoax but there's still the issue of the refusal to communicate and not citing their source. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυեᵀᵃˡᵏ 00:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Religious promotion based on Answers in Genesis

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

---

• Answers in Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ~2026-49014-47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-47985-61 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-48337-72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-47958-69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-47598-09 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-46786-89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-46487-17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2026-46528-62 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

Someone using a group of TAs has been promoting their religious mission on Wikipedia, citing the pseudoscientifice religious website Answers in Genesis, and pushing programs from the religious theater group called Logos Theatre and a Christian school in Ohio. They have tried to diminish the scientific dismissal of Answers in Genesis. At this point they have crossed the line into WP:NOTHERE territory. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Adding Special:Contributions/~2026-49274-35 which delivered an odd personal attack. Part of the previous group. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Now taken care of by another admin. Let me know if the problem continues with any new TAs. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Dancing with the stars

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

---

Vegamike2015$12 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Unclear report, but noting I've full protected the article to stop the edit war. Star Mississippi 19:32, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

that's fine it's just to get people to stop changing the cast list Vegamike2015$12 (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and consensus refusal by User:Kosmge123

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

Kosmge123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am writing to request that you provide your assessment of User:Kosmge123’s pattern of disruptive editing and ongoing refusal to comply with the consensus.

On the Talk:Looksmaxxing, this user has insisted on using “Wikipedia’s voice” to state that “the topic of looksmaxxing is based on white supremacy.” Several editors (including MoAtWiki, Jmanrip, and Catechesis) have already addressed this issue on the talk page explaining that this is a violation of WP:ASSERT because it presents a very controversial sociopolitical interpretation as an objective fact. Additionally, the user also violates WP:LEAD by forcing an extreme claim into the introduction while it is not supported by the body of the article.

Reviewing the Special:Contributions/Kosmge123 will demonstrate that this user is a single-purpose account (WP:SPA), focused only on the subjects that are related to the manosphere and incels, and giving a clear indication of a battleground mentality (WP:NOTHERE) instead of acting in accordance with Wikipedia policy, making sure to achieve neutrality.

User:Kosmge123 continues to refuse to comply with the consensus even after engaging in lengthy discussion and being given multiple opportunities like using the neutral attribution in the sources provided.

Please review this user's conduct and consider appropriate editing restrictions or behavioral warnings.

AbdulShahin (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Administrators, thank you for reviewing this. This report mischaracterizes a standard editorial dispute over reliable sourcing as 'disruptive editing.' I have engaged on policy grounds. The filing is highly biased, as it simply parrots the exact arguments of a single recent talk page participant while entirely ignoring the constructive consensus previously established with other editors and the compromise solutions I have repeatedly offered. Also I rather think that this person is a single purpose account, since if you go to his page, his account has been made at the same time this report has been made. He created this account just for this report.

​Here is the reality of the situation on the Talk page: ​"Battleground Mentality" (WP:NOTHERE) and WP:SPA: The allegation that I am a Single-Purpose Account acting with a "battleground mentality" is false. Engaging deeply with reliable sources (WP:RS) to defend academic consensus on high-visibility pages is standard encyclopedic editing, not disruptive behavior. Advocating for the inclusion of peer-reviewed findings is done in good faith to maintain article quality, not to attack other editors. My contribution history covers a variety of topics. My engagement on this specific article is driven by a commitment to ensuring pages accurately reflect academic consensus, not a battleground mentality. WP:ASSERT: The reporting editor claims this is a "controversial sociopolitical interpretation" being forced in Wikipedia's voice. High-quality, peer-reviewed sources (including studies in Crime, Media, Culture) that the PSL scale and its underlying metrics draw on eugenics and racist believes and outdated physiognomy. Even if its a "contested analysis, Im ready to compromise the atribution, The reporting editor is rejecting any compromise because they are seeking total erasure of these source-backed findings, rather than neutral framing. Prior Constructive Consensus: I am not editing against community consensus. I have already engaged in constructive, detailed discussions regarding this exact matter with established editors, including FeydHuxtable and HarvardJock. My edits align with the verifiable academic consensus we discussed. ​The Sources Explicitly State the Facts, The reporting editor claims this is a 'controversial sociopolitical interpretation.' It is not. High-quality, reliable secondary sources (WP:RS) including NPR, psychiatric experts, and peer-reviewed studies in journals like Crime, Media, Culture, explicitly define the structural metrics of the movement (such as the PSL scale) as being rooted in eugenics, and white supremacy. The reporting editor claims I am refusing to use neutral attribution. However, its been some time ago but I think Ive explicitly offered this exact compromise on the Talk page. ​WP:LEAD: The reporting editor is correct that the body currently lacks the depth to fully support the lede, per WP:LEAD. However, the standard Wikipedia procedure for this discrepancy is to expand the body using our reliable sources, not to scrub well-documented facts from the article entirely. I am currently preparing a fully sourced draft for the History/Ideology section to resolve this exact issue. ​I am actively trying to collaboratively improve the article and have offered policy-compliant solutions. Kosmge123 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I had a look at the article discussion and nobody there is covering themselves in glory. @Kosmge123 should review WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. One of the three sources they're using appears to be an academic journal and that source is likely due inclusion. But not as a grammatically weak sentence crammed into the lead. That discussion could probably use fresh participants but I don't think it's a clear behaviour problem yet unless some of those TAs are named editors editing while logged out. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

A diversion into LLM vs no-LLM unrelated to basic issue

@Kosmge123, see WP:AITALK. Your entry was judged 100% AI by Pangram and GPTzero, and has some phrases typically seen in AI-generated comments on Wikipedia. We want to hear from you in your own words--AI tends to change things subtly and not so subtly that distorts communication from person to person. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This comment is not AI-generated. I wrote it entirely myself, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but it is completely my own writing. Kosmge123 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't need any AI checker (which are, widely, inaccurate) to tell that that comment was very blatantly LLM generated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Dismissing my comments and collapsing them based on subjective guesses about writing style is completely unfair. I wrote those arguments myself. Accusing editors of using LLMs just to write off their contributions isn't constructive. Please actually address the policy points and reliable sources being discussed. Kosmge123 (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

How am I supposed to defend myself or participate in a policy discussion if every structured response I write is immediately dismissed and collapsed as "LLM-generated"? Thats very unfair. Kosmge123 (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The edit you just made to your comment above (Also I rather think that this person is a single purpose account, sincebif you go zo his page, his account has been made at the same time this report has been made. He created this account just for this report.) is wildly different in tone from the original comment. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

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

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

My tone changed because adding a quick, off-the-cuff follow-up is naturally going to sound different than sitting down to write out a carefully structured policy argument with citations. People don't write in the exact same register when they are making a quick point versus drafting a detailed response.
Using natural variations in tone as "proof" of AI usage or bad faith is completely unfair—not to mention that I spent a long time for this singular response, since an accusation of this kind is a serious matter.Kosmge123 (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This response is also very obviously AI-generated. Please stop using AI to write comments. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This is tiring, as of now, to me it's just a gambling-game, if a comment written by me is considered AI generated... I included those dots additionally, so that this one doesn't get flagged aswell... an AI wouldn't do that right? Kosmge123 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger may I ask as an uninvolved editor, what basically is this post here about? shane (talk to me if you want!) 20:39, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Kosmge123's comment that starts with Administrators, thank you for reviewing this, that they denied as being written using a LLM, is so blatantly LLM-generated it may as well have Matrix digital rain falling from it. Even leaving aside the drastic difference in tone from edits they obviously wrote themselves, there's blatant tells once you know what you're looking at. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

So from your statemnt I conclude that what you are saying, that your judgement that its indeed LLM generated content is—subjective? Kosmge123 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Please tell me how I shall justify myself to you, prove that my comments—have NOT been generated by AI Kosmge123 (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Its about a phrase in the lede— a complete unserious matter to report to the administrators. Kosmge123 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Support trout for the LLM usage, otherwise no action. This seems like something that frankly belongs in dispute resolution or arbcom potentially. It's a messy deadlock that needs someone to "referee" it. I would in fact strongly recommend "filing" this at dispute resolution. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Laggan Boy refusal to follow MOS

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

---

For years, User:Laggan Boy has persisted in using a nonstandard style to refer to British peers in articles; see, e.g., . In doing so, they frequently capitalize the "T" in "The" preceding the title, as in the following: . I and others have asked Laggan over the years to follow the MOS when editing articles; I have personally started at least two topics on their talk page, including handwritten explanations of the relevant MOS guidelines. Nonetheless, Laggan has persisted in introducing nonstandard styles and in mocking editors who visit their talk page to discuss the issue. Although Laggan has clearly also made valuable contributions to the project, at this point it seems unlikely that they will abide by the MOS unless something changes. Perhaps a temporary block is in order? I have not included extensive diffs and would refer admins to their talk page, which provides a history of these issues going back quite some time. Wallnot (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Truly a hanging offence!!! 🤣 Am I being 'tried' by a kangaroo court? 🙄 Laggan Boy (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil, this is a discussion on your actions and the poster's actions, you aren't being tried in this noticeboard, matter of fact you'd only be tried in the arbitration committee if your actions have been contentious, and serious enough that it goes way beyond administrative actions. shane (talk to me if you want!) 20:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Edits like this are simply ridiculous, and your response above and responses in the thread on your talk page illustrate there'd a severe problem here with civility as well. I also notice on the talk page editors being accused of 'vandalism' when advising Laggan Boy to follow the MOS (followed by their again flouting MOS). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, mate, that's not very civil of you, referring to my genuine edit as 'ridiculous'. Practice what you preach, mate. Laggan Boy (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

If people treat the rules as optional annoyances, than this encyclopedia descends to chaos. Can the flippant remarks; we would prefer you to be part of this project, but if you don't want to follow the rules and wish to leave, that can be arranged, too. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Given there is a history of uncivil behavior dating back years with others referencing this issue, I have placed a final warning on Laggan Boy's talk page regarding the behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Contributing here as I'd raised pretty much the same thing with the editor (as had multiple other editors previously; Though it looks like mine was the proverbial "straw"). I also recently asked Laggan Boy about the rationale for these types of edits (which seem to form a sizable number of their edits/goals across many articles/years - and often the editor's only change to an article). While the tone of the response I got to my question largely speaks for itself (as does the suggestion that they don't see any point in engaging with or seeking consensus with other Wikipedia editors), the various rationales given seemed directly at odds with guidelines on referring to people with titles in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, the MOS on honorifics in running text and the norms on the transparency and intuitiveness of links. Some of the rationales given (including that Laggan Boy feels we should refer to people by the "titles that these individuals used during their lifetime" ) doesn't sit with my understanding of the guidelines (including that we typically refer to people by their names rather than only their titles or by an ordinal). Nor does it explain those occasions, like here, where there's every indication that the subject consciously chose not to accept a peerage title (or Lords seat). The other rationale offered (that it is the purpose of Wikipedia to "'educate' the wider public as to what his titles [..] were") also seems inconsistent with the context of many edits. (As, while it is entirely true that the purpose of the Bracken or Monty or David Cameron articles includes educating readers about the titles these subjects had or used, that should be done in the article on that subject. Not in random/confusing/counter-productive places like the infobox of a completely different biographical subject.) I, frankly, was simply hoping to get a straight answer from the editor as to why they think MOS:HONORIFICS and WP:NCPEER don't apply to their edits. Mostly what I got was a diatribe about "cabals" and "bias". Absent a policy-based explanation, and given that this has been going on for years, it seems to me that the editor is undertaking some kind of personal project. And appears to be approaching it in a way that isn't consistent with the project norms set-out in the Manual of Style (for peers, links, honorifics and EASTEREGGs) or in the editor guidelines (on consensus-based editing and inter-editor etiquette). I'm not sure what to suggest as next steps. But, certainly, I don't think the editor should continue as they have been. (Where an editor's only contribution to an article is to add stuff that's inconsistent established MOS norms, I'm not sure how it can be considered an improvement. And, when they do the same thing across multiple articles/years (over repeated suggestions from other editors that it seems inconsistent with MOS norms), I'm not sure how that can be considered anything other than disruptive)....). My 2x cents anyway.... Guliolopez (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe if he doesn't consider himself to be a Wikipedia editor he shouldn't be editing Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

May one state this, in relation to David Cameron? In most of the articles about British government ministers, or people who have served as a British government minister, if their predecessor or successor had a peerage or knighthood / damehood while they held that particular ministerial office, then they are usually referred to by that title in the section 'preceded by' or 'succeeded by'. Why is this suddenly different with Cameron? I only used his title in keeping with this 'convention', when he had his peerage, when he is listed as a predecessor or successor in the role of British Foreign Secretary. I was actually bringing a bit of standardisation to all this. However, it seems Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton is to be treated differently in this regard. I personally find this 'ridiculous'. Laggan Boy (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Your concerns are understandable but the issue is the rest of your conduct. Take these discussions up at the MOS, don't edit war these and belittle everyone who tries to talk to you about this. Keep the bare minimum of mature conduct. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to find it ridiculous. What you're not welcome to do is to flout policies and conventions because other articles do it a certain way and/or because you find them ridiculous. There's a lot of Wikipedia standards that I personally find quite silly. But I follow them, and enforce them, regardless because Wikipedia operates on consensus, not what you or I consider ridiculous, silly, or even best policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I reiterate the statement in my original post that at least a temporary block, perhaps even an indefinite block subject to appeals, is appropriate here. The user has shown the same behavior on this topic as they have on their own talk page. If a newly created account flouted the MOS and responded flippantly, without any regard for policies and guidelines, to polite advisories on the same, they would be blocked right away, without recourse to ANI. I'm not sure I understand why so much latitude has been extended to a user who has flouted years' worth of such advisories. Wallnot (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Between the conversation here, on Laggan Boy's talk page, and a lot of spot checks of other discussions in his history, I don't think a stern warning here would mean anything to them. Indef, and let an experienced admin determine down the road whether Laggan Boy is ready, if ever, to act like a Laggan Adult instead of cosplaying as an eight-year-old. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, that is a horrendously uncivil post here. Horrendously uncivil. The double standards here are appalling: I am being ordered to be civil, and yet you can come out with a horrendously uncivil comment like that. Laggan Boy (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe if you say "horrendously uncivil" again, someone will believe you? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I suggest "uncivilly horrendous", to avoid exact repetition. Narky Blert (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Horrendously? This is a bell pepper level of spice, and if this is already horrendously uncivil, you leave me with few descriptors for something with some actual tang. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

While "horrendously" was a not good attempt at a sarcasm, boring ageist jokes about nicknames are (plain) uncivil indeed. As the policy says, "Comment on content, not the contributors". ~2026-49709-32 (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that tears it. The flippiancy on display here indicates a fundamental incompatbility with an collaborative project. I've applied an indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Michael Shellenberger

• Michael Shellenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For many years, this article has been essentially taken over by a tag-team of SPAs who have used 3RR to prevent editors from engaging in normal editing processes and consensus building. The editors include:

• ShellenbergerM (talk · contribs) (a declared COI and topic of the article)
• Brahman12 (talk · contribs)
• PerpetualPomegranate (talk · contribs)
• MrWikiDetective (talk · contribs)
• MysticMagpie (talk · contribs)

Multiple regular editors on the talk page have identified these accounts as having a pro-Shellenberger bias. A Sock Puppet Invesgiation found that "meatpuppetry or off-wiki coordination is somewhat more likely here". (The SPI page has evidence). Recent page edits show the pattern: someone adds a fairly innocuous edit, the 3 or 4 SPAs begin tag teaming to delete it all the while whining that 'edit warring must stop' and 'against the rules', meanwhile making specious arguments on the talk page.

The editors technique is to claim there is a conspiracy against Shellenberger, that everyone is out to smear him, and they are defending article neutrality ie. to wikilawyer everything to to a standstill. Meanwhile they will say claims of COI are bad faith and casting aspersions. -- GreenC 02:02, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a job for the fringe noticeboard as well. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

What a clusterfuck. I was going to fully protect the page, but I don't even know what version I'd revert to to avoid WP:PREFER issues. I'm going to open an AfD instead. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I'll just impose XC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:10, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

voorts. The SPAs are working in concert to manage Shellenberger's reputation, according to Shellenberger's stated wishes - he posted his wishes on the talk page, and the SPA crew has followed those demands through edit warring and wiki lawyering. This goes back years now, his and his crews involvement. AfD would close Keep (he is notable), page locks will expire, RfCs are not possible fairly due to many red accounts that would show up. -- GreenC 04:01, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Why not just STUBIFY the article to get rid of all the bullshit and cruft? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:40, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

voorts, there are 5+ meat puppets who control the article, for years. Because of the 1 revert rule, so long as you have enough editors acting in concert, you can override other editors. While there is no direct proof of COI or UPE, it has all the hallmarks and is the only explanation that fits the pattern. Until this is taken care of it, will become increasingly disruptive as this group continues to interfere with normal Wikipedia editors. -- GreenC 20:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It's ECP now. None of the alleged meatpuppets are XC as far as I can tell. As you know, I also left a note on the talk page saying I would consider imposing word limits on particular talk page discussions, which should make it far easier to prevent the puppets from disrupting consensus discussions. There's also no 1RR on that article as far as I can see. So, if you stubify the article now, the meatpuppets can't disrupt the article; all they would be able to do is complain on talk, and their complaints can be handled thru normal discussion. I don't know what else I can possibly do as an admin here unless you have sufficient evidence for me to block editors for disruption. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

voorts, got it understood, thanks. I think it is 1RR because of the talk page banner? As seen below, Michael is actively involved in the article. The wishes broadcast below would normally be implemented by the meat puppets then edit warred to prevent change. Will see what happens now. -- GreenC 22:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

That only applies to GMO content. Clarifying the talk notice. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

GreenC has described the situation quite accurately. It's disheartening that SPAs have been allowed to control the article for so long. The Shellenberger bio got on my watchlist after it showed up on WP:FTN so I took note of the vigorous SPA tag-team activity back in May, but did not know the full extent. Seems they are dedicated to executing Shellenberger's wishes, and lately that means the only description they will allow in the opening sentence is "author, journalist and professor". The article needs relief from the siege of present and future SPA's, and attention from long term experienced editors to repair any parts that have been SPA-managed and determine how to improve the BLP overall. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Bear in mind long term editors and even some admins are listed "for sale" on marketplaces such as UpWork. I would be wary if such an editor suddenly shows up on the Talk page to lobby for Shellenberger in order to circumvent extended confirmed page protection. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement from the article subject. I am Michael Shellenberger, writing from my disclosed account. I am here because in the 36 hours since this thread opened, the editors who filed it have rewritten the lead of my biography in violation of the policies they cite against others.

The first sentence. MOS:FIRSTBIO says the first sentence should state "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms," and that the opening paragraph must "reflect the balance of reliable sources." The official House transcript of March 9, 2023 lists me as "Twitter Files Journalist, Author, Environmentalist." CBS News called Taibbi, Weiss, and me "three journalists." NPR: "Journalist Michael Shellenberger, founder of the Public news outlet." At 09:34 UTC on September 13, with every editor who disagreed locked out by protection, Alpha3031 replaced "author, journalist and professor" with "activist, author and opinion columnist best known for his heterodox views" (Special:Diff/1374654327). The edit summary was about citation cleanup. Nothing was proposed on the talk page. The night before he had written: "I honestly don't know why when have him as 'professor' (I mean, other than the obvious)."

What the lead omits. MOS:LEAD requires the lead to "summarize the most important points." The lead now says nothing about Public, the Twitter Files, my testimony before Congress, or the CBR Chair of Politics, Censorship, and Free Speech at the University of Austin. Those subjects exist in the wikitext only as a hidden comment: "Maybe add a sentence or two here about TFP/Public or whatever, the UAP stuff, Genspect etc?" WP:IMPARTIAL warns that "inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized." That is the method here.

The criticism sentence. WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts... they should be attributed in the text to particular sources." WP:BLPBALANCE: criticism must be "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." The lead says, in Wikipedia's voice and with no attribution, that I have been "accused of 'bad science'," of "anti-green contrarianism," and of "multiple errors." The editor who wrote it described it on the talk page on September 13 as criticism "I added randomly," adding: "When the article develops further with added sources, maybe revisit the lead." WP:BLP answers that directly: the idea that "it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced" does "not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."

A false statement. At 11:06 UTC the same editor added to the lead, with no citation, that I was "born to Mennonite parents" (Special:Diff/1374665107). I was not. They were no longer Mennonites when they had me. WP:BLP: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." WP:BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that... is unsourced or poorly sourced."

What I am asking. WP:NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." I ask an uninvolved administrator to revert the first sentence to the protected version; to impose the "consensus required" restriction on the lead, under which "an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page"; to remove the Mennonite sentence now; and to refer the lead to the BLP noticeboard for review by editors with no history on this page. ~2026-49599-39 (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49599-39: If you really are Michael Shellenberger, then why are you editing logged out and not with your ShellenbergerM account? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't personally mind logged out editing if you're going to identify yourself anyway (though you may prefer using your account for your own privacy). As to your complaint about the professor thing, you are free to make an edit request adding (more of) that information to the body. If it has more than one sentence then it might be possible to consider adding it to the first sentence, otherwise I don't see how anyone who does not have the appearance of a conflict of interest could seriously suggest it belongs in the first sentence. It's one sentence of a 2.8 thousand word article for christssake.

As for the Mennonite thing, I'm not attached to it and it does make the lead shorter so I'll remove, but again you may wish to request for it to be removed from the body with a source stating so (I don't think VRT is suitable as it would most likely need to be a published source but post something on your blog or whatever) since the body is what the lead is supposed to be based on. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Also re: The lead now says nothing about Public, the Twitter Files, my testimony before Congress, or the CBR Chair of Politics, Censorship, and Free Speech at the University of Austin. You are certainly more than welcome to propose an addition to anything I've noted as TK in a comment (in proportion to how it is in the body of the article). I'm not going to do so right now because I have to go to work at a job which is unfortunately not editing this encyclopaedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:36, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

As for the criticism "added randomly", it was added to a lead paragraph in no particular sequence, but that doesn't mean the actual criticism is random. It is sourced criticism, the words are literally taken from reliably sourced publications. My suggestion is that when the article body is revised to include all notable criticism, the important points of the criticism can and should be summarized in the lead. Editors can then decide which paragraph it should be located in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I p-blocked everyone but ShellenbergerM per this discussion --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User:MolecularBot is malfunctioning

User:MolecularBot is malfunctioning — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-49272-24 (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

How so? --Hammersoft (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Indconquistador

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

---

Indconquistador (talk · contribs) is blocked, but has access to their talk page.

I have asked them to stop pinging me there, but they continue to do so (, ), including after I told them:

If you ping me again, I'll ask for your ability to do so to be removed; likely by removing your ability to edit this page.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:12, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I have revoked their talk page access. They are more than welcome to appeal via UTRS; I do not hold out any hope, however. CoconutOctopus talk 09:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Mgsjga

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

---

Mgsjga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made their two first edits by removing cited content from a GA article (Abbas II of Persia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) and lying about the contents of the sources being cited. When I provided the text from the related book and reverted their edits, they proceeded to ignore my level one warning on their talk page, delete content again, and call me clown and fool on their talk page. Amir Ghandi (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

And they also have called me bitch Amir Ghandi (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

They continue to edit war and delete cited content. Amir Ghandi (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

They continue their edit war, this time calling me 'keep crying you illiterate ESL Bitch' Amir Ghandi (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Warned on their TP, but (unfortunately) I know WP:NOTHERE behavior when I see it. In solidarity, Miniapolis 22:55, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, they are still edit warring and refuse to make any comments here. Amir Ghandi (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

FYI: wp:EWN#User:Mgsjga reported by User:Adakiko (Result: ). Too late? Adakiko (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeffed by EvergreenFir Adakiko (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

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

~2026-49443-28

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

---

~2026-49443-28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism-only account. This revision of their Talk page should be sufficient. Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Adan736

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

---

Adan736 (talk · contribs) - I've reverted and warned this user for adding incorrect information to BLPs, and also nominated a few of their creations for deletion. Their response has been to vandalise my user page, PROD my user page, and AFD my user page. I think clearly WP:NOTHERE but I'm clearly INVOLVED... GiantSnowman 12:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd be curious to say what they have to say in defence but their vandalism of your userpage alone is enough for a block imho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. It's one thing to disagree with an editor's actions. It's quite another to start vandalising because you disagree. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Секретное общество

Секретное общество (talk · contribs) – Edit warring on Hasan Piker ( ), a contentious topic (and clearly making a contentious edit), along with possible harrassment on talk pages (as laid out by Hipal here: , ). I'm seeing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here. Skyshiftertalk 17:37, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The username is Russian for "secret society". I draw no inferences from that. Narky Blert (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Also note that the user is currently indefinitely blocked on Bronze Age Pervert, a contentious topic, for "long-term edit warring against consensus". Skyshiftertalk 18:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

New response on their talk page. Skyshiftertalk 02:16, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User tried to remove this ANI report Skyshiftertalk 05:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

support Indef - yeah i mean they seemed a minor troll for a bit so was happy to try out WP:DNFTT, but this suggests they simply just are WP:NOTHERE.

Anyways, they have better things to do than hang with low status pedantic gatekeepes like us anyways. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Just looking at the diffs I could see a jump straight to indef, this behavior is wildly inappropriate. --JBL (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

There's similar comportment at the Antifa page Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Support indef, as others have mentioned this behavior is completely antithetical to Wikipedia. It seems like this user took WP:GIANTDICK to heart. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 18:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

There's also this. Indef'd as WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Guess account was right that they knew how to get accounts “deleted” User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

"Please follow the rules" coming from this user is peak comedy. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 21:07, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Articles Started by User:Haoreima

I had recently nominated quite a few articles created by Haoreima (talk · contribs) for AfD, because they appeared to be largely spam and in many ways promotional. I am also restricted from mainspace (for prior non disclosure of an AI based script) but another user mentioned that I should be able to bring this issue up at ANI. There has also been ongoing discussions in Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard#User:Haoreima regarding AI use but I feel that there is much more than simply just AI assisted edits. Another user @AadamentAardvark had also noted in an AfD that this should be brought up to a relevant noticeboard. For context take a quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Manipur to get an overview of the articles I had tagged.

Yes, I would have trusted the user with a clean up, but most of the articles created are not notable at all, and are borderline WP:SPAM. Just do take a look at articles such as Meitei people in North America, Meitei people in South Korea, Mit (Meitei letter). Most of the content also appears to be a WP:SYNTH of user generated content from e-pao.net. The user has also created questionable pages such as Bibliography of Meitei culture which is also another violation of WP:NOTDIR. There is also borderline WP:PROMO and violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY with pages such as Yenning-tha. There are WP:NOTNEWS violations at pages such as 2023 in Meitei culture. There are barely anything of substance created by the user, and there is a total of 596 or so pages. Although I agree with Kowal2701 that we should allow the user to help in the clean up, because in the past I had been guilty of LLM use as well, I do not believe that we could even go about cleaning these pages, because there is nothing to save. All of the pages to me simply appears either spam, promotional or other violations of Wikipedia's guidelines. In order to save articles they must atleast be salvageable, that is meet the standards to be included in Wikipedia. These articles do not. Also the user had in the past created articles such as Prostitution in Kuki society, by again synthesising user generated materials, so I feel further scrutinization would be needed. This particular edit on this article might indicate a WP:POV based issues.

I have had past interactions with the user and I do not have much concerns with bad-faith edits. I assume these were created in good faith, and the user just needs time to learn the ropes of Wikipedia. However there definitely appears to be a lot of issues with WP:CIR in terms of judging an article's notability or understanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Also I was wondering, if you we could start something, for such a clean up to revisit all the articles created by the user. I had also requested @Star Mississippi just today to batch nominate quite a few articles relating to the Sangai Festival 2011 all the way to Sangai Festival 2022.

The user has created over 596 articles and I feel that we would need to WP:TNT most of them. A fresh start might be better, also because these articles do not really in any form meet the criteria to be included in wikipedia Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Copy and pasting here something I wrote in the wrong place.

Haoreima has a history of whitewashing misanthropic terrorist groups and dehumanizing the Kuki-Zo people.

Here is him removing well-sourced claims and whitewashing a group known for sexual violence against Kuki-Zo people.

He also uses personal attacks multiple times such as calling me and Kautilya3 "notable" for "fabrications" for good faith edits in Thangjing.

He is also hard to work with in Simple Wikipedia with his copy and paste from the English one, and also his biting of new users. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Just noting I'm aware. I bundled the articles @Flyingphoenixchips referenced as I had already participated in the AfD for Sangai Festival 2011 and the nomination applied to each year's article. I have not and likely will not have the chance to look into Haoreima's creations more broadly unfortunately Star Mississippi 19:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Everyone is appreciated to do the needful to any article that requires maintenance (to delete/redirect/merge/draftify). I have no issues. FYI, I completely stopped creating articles, once I was notified by other editors that my articles need to be reworked, so that I could look into fixing the problems rather than making new. On another note, I have been rewriting articles I have created/expanded (which need fixation) slowly one by one, after being notified by a user in my talkpage. Thanks for this discussion and the community's constructive feedbacks will be really appreciated. ☺️ Sanguis Nobilissimus 🩸👑 (Tibi loqui licet! 💬 — "Speak!") 00:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know :) Also just a head's up, if you want to create a new article, please start using the Wikipedia:Article for Creation process from now on Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner could we possibly start tagging these articles for PROD? I feel it would make it easier if the articles with quality issues I listed above are tagged for PROD instead of an AfD. There are about 596 articles in total, and it would be extremely hard to have an AfD discussion for all of them. I would even support the LLM created articles that are notable to not be PRODded because they can atleast still be salvaged and re-edited by @Haoreima. However the rest of the things needs to be speedily deleted in my opinion. Just not really sure what Speedy deletion criteria might apply Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

G15 seems a bit extreme but we couls maybe LLMPROD the non-notable articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

LLMPROD maybe yes, but then again there are also articles like The Living God: Medicine and The Ancient Meetei Civilization which clearly fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. also articles like , Beoncy Laishram, Femina Miss Manipur etc which were created around 2022, so I doubt if they were LLM generated. They have almost the same issues too Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Generally speaking, once you start an ANI case you have to sit on your hands and wait for the outcome. (I've been there: it's nervewracking!)

PROD has to be absolutely clear-cut and uncontroversial or you can't use it. The article you showed me is a coatrack, it's promotional, but it's not speedy-deletion level bad. For example an article can be full of bullet-point lists, boldface, and other AISIGNS but G15 speedy deletion still can't be used; that needs chatbox communication or nonsense citations.

LLMPROD is less restrictive, but it's not clear that their articles are mostly LLM (though some clearly are). Even then, I would personally not touch anything during an open ANI case. I advise patience. If that case ends up with a consensus on action, we can work out what the best approach is. Maybe LLMPROD the more LLM-like ones and batch AfD for others. M kuhner (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Well yes that does make sense! Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose we will just have to wait and see. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Haoreima, I also noticed that @AnonLionCavalier83 had also made few observations that were not part of the initial ANI. Since I also saw that you did happen to create the article Prostitution in Kuki society, could you also elaborate a bit more on those allegations? It would be helpful for others involved here as well. Thanks again for being extremely cooperative Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not obliged to address every allegation. If anyone feels offended or has concerns, they are welcome to provide the exact diffs and raise the issues with the concerned authorities.

Regarding the article, it was created based on cited sources. Whether the article was retained or deleted was ultimately a matter governed by the wiki’s policies and guidelines. Sanguis Nobilissimus 🩸👑 (Tibi loqui licet! 💬 — "Speak!") 03:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You certainly need to respond to why you removed well sourced material about a extremist group and whitewash it in the name of WP:POV. To quote Even though it's sourced, whatever you are adding are highly biased and not neutral. Wikipedia needs WP:POV. Framing any criticism of an known extremist group as "highly biased and not neutral" doesn't work here. We might as well edit the KKK's page to claim it is a socio-political organization-, as it falsely claims. I likewise caution you to read WP:NONAZI if you think AT's or the KKK is a legitimate socio-political group. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

An ANI I'm afraid is a little more than community feedback. An LLMPROD should be the minimum of the moves taken here. wp:afd already has a backlog, when 15 articles by the same editor, essentially on the same subject are coming up for essentially the same valid reasons, that is a problem. I would suggest at a bare minimum posting any future articles to be reviewed as a draft because the independent quality is not strong enough for the mainspace. At the very least there need to be reminders about sourcing and I'm skeptical of this "needs to learn" idea after 600 articles. How many articles do you get to publish before being considered irresponsible or even malicious? I would also be interested in looking at these allegations of white-washing genocide further. If that can be established, I wouldn't need to see much else. AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I would also be interested in looking at these allegations of white-washing genocide further.

He has removed negative sentences about a misanthropic group known for sexual violence. (See diff 1, diff 2, diff 3.) The group is a perpetrator of the Manipur Conflict. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

An ANI I'm afraid is a little more than community feedback - Just a few things: This is the correct venue for behavioral issues, as there are allegations of multiple issues above. There is also a concurrent AINB thread for the AI issue, but if an admin finds that the behavioral issues are valid, then this will not just be "community feedback". Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis on requested redirects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyrighted content at Gordon W. Bowie?

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

---

The text at Gordon W. Bowie appears to be verbatim copy from the first footnote in the article, , with the bare exception of the sentence about the subject's death. I reckon that's something we would consider a copyright infringement? Robby.is.on (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. ScalarFactor (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Erterian History

Erterian History (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 17 June 2026 altered sourced information, replacing "Persian" with "Arab", also removing his place of birth
2. August 2026 Here they tried to get an article deleted because they didn't agree with it, despite WP:RS contradicting them.
3. 26 August 2026 Later tried to alter the sourced information in the article they failed to delete
4. 6-9 September 2026 Tried to add an unsourced map, when told to provide source, resorts to using LLMs to write their responses
5. 11-13 September 2026 , removed sourced info, saying that "Just deleted the useless information about diplomatic relation between Lakhmids/Ghassassinids", however, the sourced info stated more than that, that the Early Muslim conquests were not the first time the Arabian Peninsula had been (mostly) united, previously happening under Abraha (keep that name in mind, will become very relevant shortly). When Erterian History were called out for that, they refused to elaborate and continued reverting
6. 12-13 September 2026 Keeps adding unsourced information.
7. 13 September 2026 now onto the Abraha article; Erterian History removes sourced information, in the first diff claiming "This information is strictly not accurate academically and historically", initially refuses to elaborate and then suddenly changes their reason for removing it, claiming that "Because that sources was fake my friend, it talks about himyarite trade routes influence not about conquests,". I checked the citation (Robin 2012, p. 272–273., uploaded pages here ) and it does indeed talk about the info it cited, so Erterian History is being dishonest.

There is possibly some WP:CIR issues here. Erterian History is insistent on "debating" people (eg here ), despite being told many times that information is based on WP:RS, not our own personal opinion/deductions. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

i already discussed this edits with the people of the page, thats why i cancelled the edits there because i had a debate and discussion with them.

But you can't even prove me wrong there Erterian History (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you will have to do it the way everyone else does - which is to provide the appropriate sources. We are under no obligation to 'prove you wrong', because your personal opinions are irrelevant to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Ofc i do not edit anything based on my assumptions without doing research and educating myself.

You can also see that those edits you mintioned before are old.

And you can also see that i abandoned those edits after i got a discussion with kritos in the talk page same with th other edits i always talk in the talk page if there was any problem.

But the real problem does not lie only here.

Its is also because of you went into my contributions and and removed dozens of edits from different arricles.

I askwd you to enter a discusion with me in the talk page.

But you said that you don't want to debate me.

And this is the main problem.

Thank you, and good Night... Erterian History (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

As Andy mentioned, there is no requirement for Wikipedia editors to prove [you] wrong. In fact, the opposite is true - the responsibility is yours to provide evidence using reliable sources in a dispute, and you are not allowed to use your own personal knowledge, even if you know it's true. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

i know thats why i told you to come to debate in the talk page.

But you escalated the matter to ANI.

If we talked in the talk page first we xan solve the problem instead of escalating everything to ANI.

Thank you and good night. We will debate tommorrow Erterian History (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree on the WP:CIR. Kristos (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Im sorry but who are you guys?

I thought i was talking with HistoryofIran the whole time, but there is alot of Accounts there Erterian History (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Once you start arguing with people here, it's everyone's turn. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

This is the Administrators' Noticeboard (for) Incidents or ANI. (Officially "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" as seen above.) As explained at Noticeboards, these are pages where editors can get assistance for a variety of things. To quote the Noticeboard page, ANI is "for reporting incidents requiring urgent attention by administrators", which is why there is a number of participants here. HistoryofIran has brought up your conduct here for an urgent review. I would suggest reviewing ANI advice --Super Goku V (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2026 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

FYI, the user Erterian History likely created another account: Special:Contributions/Doctor Tenma. The individual Doctor Tenma reinstated Erterian History's edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qaryat_al-Faw&action=history, the same image is also his own that was uploaded to Wikipedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:File_00000000c5b4820aa2236b7732b7d9a9.png. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Is this sufficient evidence to support an SPI? Kristos (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, the montage appears to be his own, but the images in it don't. NebY (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

If you believe it is likely, then an investigation should be requested at SPI. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Kpop777 continued bludgeoning AfD discussion, even after being warned to stop

Kpop777 was warned by an administrator to stop disrupting an AfD discussion here: .

He was also warned on his talk page: User talk:Kpop777#Bludgeoning a discussion.

He wrote 21 replies in the AfD discussion after his initial response. Even after being warned, he made 4 more replies. He said that he doesn't care about the AfD discussion anymore, but it's concerning that he ignored the warning.

He also engaged in recent edit warring today on EFILism. Kpop777 was also blocked for 2-weeks before. This user seems to have a pattern of incorrigible behavior that is likely to continue into the future, which may require some disciplinary action. ~2026-49546-29 (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I notified Kpop777 about this discussion on his talk page: ~2026-49546-29 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Amazing, I just posted the very link in the other place, and then suddenly see this. ~2026-49642-87 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I do agree some sanction is in order, but I don't think indef is necessary. I don't know what else would be in order short of a temp block given disruption was in article space and xfd. Perhaps a WP:TBAN for antinatalism, broadly construed DarmaniLink (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that this was written some hours prior this report, and they're not edited since. ~2026-49642-87 (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

i reverted your edits on EFILism because the delete side of the AfD discussion kept removing sources, including academic sources and most of the article then saying in the AfD "not enough sources cover EFILism" or "the sources only cover the bombing" when the delete side deleted the sources. I didn't continue to bludgeon the discussion after I was warned I was just frustrated people were playing dirty, and now I'm getting reported to administrators again. If you were me you would be Frustrated too. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith, and that's what I'm doing but I'm simply describing what you're doing. And I got a 2-week block for edit warring in 2025 because someone used multiple alts to revert my edits on all the articles I made edits on, so I reverted him more than 3 times in one time, and at the time I was new to editing Wikipedia so I didn't know the rules. Deleting almost all of the content on the EFILism article before the AfD discussion ends is why I replied again, which Is a completely new set of comments from what I was warned on bludgeon + I said i was done because I'm just wasting my time because the delete side is going to win because of what they're doing Kpop777 (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

To clarify: likely all of this addressed to ~2026-49546-29.

My personal opinion is that one person actually providing reasonable responses is at least not worse than nearly identical responses from numerous persons. ~2026-49642-87 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't remove any academic sources, so again, I have no idea what you're talking about on that. I only removed original research, uncited information, and irrelevant information. Your frustration is simply a consequence of not understanding the reliable sourcing policy. Your frustration does not excuse your continued bludgeoning. ~2026-49546-29 (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Your frustration does not excuse your continued bludgeoning.

That was already stopped prior you filed it. ~2026-49642-87 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

someone on the delete side removed this https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/antinatalism-extinction-and-the-end-of-procreative-selfcorruption/A88E18CA50EF6D919CE459C007447DB4 which is an academic source for example. That's why I'm done with the AfD because the delete side deleted almost the entire EFILism article so now it's actually better if the whole article is deleted because now the page is like only 3 short paragraphs or so (I didn't count), so if I was new to the AfD I would vote delete myself because the article is an extremely short stub that only cites EFILism relating to the 2025 bombing. The delete side basically deleted the entire article, like 90% of it before the AfD discussion even ends. And if I revert it because you're not playing fair someone on the delete side will revert me and that'll turn into an actual edit war and I'll get blocked, so you've made it either I get blocked or I let the delete side mess with the article so the article can get deleted after the AfD discussion ends, and even then I still might get blocked even if I don't start a major edit war because the delete side keeps reporting me to administrators, so it's basically a lose-lose-lose situation for me just because I like creating articles for fun :) Kpop777 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

someone on the delete side removed this https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/antinatalism-extinction-and-the-end-of-procreative-selfcorruption/A88E18CA50EF6D919CE459C007447DB4

Western Philosophy as a Struggle against Antinatalism

sorry ~2026-49642-87 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

That source is still cited in the article, so you are accusing me of doing things that I never did. You're believing things that never happened. Your behavior doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CIR.

Anyway, your comment reveals why I had to report you. You're accusing editors of "not playing fair" when they're just following the rules. Again, you don't understanding the reliable sourcing policy, you don't want to understand it, and that is a huge problem. ~2026-49546-29 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

oh shit I guess I was hallucinating. Sorry Kpop777 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Pinging the warning admin User:Dclemens1971 for his input and to (hopefully) get a lid on this DarmaniLink (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

User has been pblocked from the AfD page for 7 days to prevent further disruption there. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Soapboxing, personal attacks

Personal attacks on own talk page and an edit summary. More personal attacks on another user's talk page here. This one by another temp user also appears to be theirs. All center around a content dispute on Wild Kratts, which the user is phrasing as a heated ideological fight.

Edit warring is happening but tangential. Anerdw (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the article's talk page, and contrary to this comment, no proof of the administrators making such decision exists, so this is inconclusive. ~2026-49665-40 (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

blocked 31 hrs for disruptive editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Xenophobic aspersions for the record . Borgenland (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

TAs making spam changes

• ~2026-49449-44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

• ~2026-49009-37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

• ~2026-48727-14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

Above TAs, and I suspect there are more, are making a series of unsourced and nonsensical language changes for quite a while, predominantly in the Pakistan-related articles. Can any administrator please look into it and block them. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I can confirm from a TAIV perspective, all 3 TAs are directly connected to each other, same range, so its likely one person. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 17:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Their disruption is still going on with another warning being issued by ​Streetr4 to them. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

TRUENERD2 - disruptive and unsourced edits without communication

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

---

TRUENERD2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another editor with a userpage full of notices and warnings, all for unsourced and poorly sourced contributions. They were blocked 16 days ago by @Canterbury Tail for unsourced edits, and yet the behaviour is continuing - just today... . They have never edited any pages in User Talk or Talk namespaces, and their edits aren't tagged as mobile edits so WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU wouldn't seem to apply. I think at this point we may be getting to the stage where enough is enough, as this editor appears to be a timesink. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Support indefinite block. They are continuing after one recent block and not even communicating on the issue when asked. Jako96 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Continued LLMTALK after notices

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

Is the subject and (AI-assisted) author of Draft:Ravi M. Ravichandhira.

On August 16 they asked an AI generated question at the AFCHD regarding their draft, which was collapsed and they were informed not to use AI to talk to other editors.

On 17 August, Sulfurboy left a template AI warning on their talk page.

On 28 August they asked a substantially identical AI generated question. They were not specifically told about LLMTALK on this occasion, but were told not to use AI for their draft.

Now again today they have asked the same question again, once again AI generated, at AFCHD; see WP:AFCHD#11:07, 14 September 2026 review of submission by CarnaticHistoryEditor. I don't know if it's willful ignorance or a lack of English competence, but this editor is obviously unable to communicate without the use of AI. Athanelar (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Support an indefinite block. The editor demonstrated a persistent inability and unwillingness to communicate using their own words, although we've given multiple clear warnings on the 17th and 28th of August. Reliance on such an LLM to generate inquiries at WP:AFCHD after being told not to violates WP:LLMTALK. If it's because their English is bad, it falls under WP:CIR (competence is required); if it's willful, then it's disruptive editing. They're wasting our time, and a block is necessary to stop them from doing it ever again. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 03:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

MikeAllen

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

---

He’s been egotistical towards temporary accounts and new editors ~2026-49771-01 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You're going to want to provide diffs, and you're also required to inform him of this discussion per the instructions at the top of this page. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Concur with Doniago. You're going to have to provide some evidence. I'm not seeing any interactions between the two of you this year. So, what interaction are you referring to? MikeAllen has never posted to your talk page, nor have you posted to theirs. You created this temporary account, made four edits having nothing to do with MikeAllen, made no attempt to communicate with them in any respect, and less than an hour after creating this temporary account you're reporting them? Sorry, that's not going to fly. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes for further instructions on what to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Y’all sound like you’re rude just saying as im a noob editor who wants to improve ~2026-49771-01 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Persistent unexplained removal of content by ~2026-40574-54

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

---

~2026-40574-54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps removing content from articles without explanation, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Recent examples of unexplained content removal: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

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

User:DynamoMachineGun doesn't seem to respect references - #2

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

Reviving the thread started here per @GiantSnowman's request. The same pattern occurred again at Coritiba Foot Ball Club, as noted here. Taking a look at the official website, it's pretty clear that Tissi, Taverna and Ararat are listed as first team players. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

There are wider issues with this editor, given the warnings on their page, but whether or not soccer players are included in a list looks to be content dispute to me. GiantSnowman 18:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Sure, WP:COMIR, lack of WP:EDITSUM and some other stuff, but why would this be "content dispute"? I am following the guidelines of listing players according to a reference, whereas they are not providing any explanation to it. Plus, taking a look at Coritiba itself, Taverna himself has not played in the under-20 team since April and has only featured with the first team afterwards, while Tissi didn't feature with the U20s since June, and has played regularly with the main squad since then. Ararat is a bit tricky, but he doesn't play for the under-20 team since April, and has featured on the bench once in a first team match in May (his last appearance, whether on the bench or playing). Since all three are listed in the reference as first team members, why should we go against it? BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The final 2/3 of your comment above is indicative of why it's a content dispute (on that particular article). GiantSnowman 20:45, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Consistent fake assumption of using AI without providing valid reasons

Gnomingstuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Elephantranges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was once reported by this user for using LLM when I was a new editor. I admitted that I was very wrong at that period, and now I'm not using AI but translator Papago since I'm not a new editor now.

In this ANI thread, the reporter poorly read the Golden Hour article and then easily, mistakenly thought that I had used AI in this article. I already refuted all of their descriptions, stating what I've wrote are based on the reliable sources.

Even though I already explained that I did not use AI there, Gnomingstuff started to put AI tag in that article just saying "see ANI thread". I felt very disrespectful that time, so opened a discussion to let him "clarify" this. But he said I'm the one who should clarify it, and then ignored my last comment. After that, he put AI tag on Musgraves's another article which are not even mentioned in that past ANI, and I restored his edit saying that he was wrong. But he ignored and put AI tag on Golden Hour article again a week later, just stating "restore factually accurate AI tag", alongside putting AI tag to another Musgraves articles (here).

Given that I have already, directly addressed this issue with Gnomingstuff and asked him to "clarify" his claim, I believe Gnomingstuff's continued behaviour is not that proper and potentially constitutes a personal attack. It is also interesting to see how Gnomingstuff treats others who asked or complained to him since he fake accused them of using AI: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.... ((deep sigh) I'll stop here since it's too much.)

Recently, Elephantranges failed my GAN of Golden Hour, without also providing a valid reason. RTSthestardust and I requested them to "provide reasoning on why the article's nomination failed rather than leave it empty", but they just stated "I've given a reason as to why it was failed which is on the page (confirmed usage of a LLM)", without any clarification. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 21:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread about this user, including the article in question here.

The overwhelming majority of the text you added to the article was added before April 15, which is when you responded to the AI noticeboard thread and said, yourself, that sentences that are difficult to interpret or to convert to wikitones are sometimes aided by AI. And even if you did not say, yourself, of your own volition, that you used AI, the edits linked above speak for themselves as they are the usual bog-standard AI music writing stuff: highlighting the whatever, emphasizing the whatever, a blend of whatever, reflecting a broader whatever, explores themes of whatever, etc. It is indistinguishable from the rest of the thousands of AI-generated music articles. And since then, you have made very few changes to that text (despite promising in the ANI thread linked above that you were planning to revise old articles I've heavily written). So the tag is factually accurate.

Personally, I find it very disrespectful to be repeatedly lied to and gaslit about things that you said yourself, but that's just me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Very unfortunate for you, but it does not mean that I kept using AI "before April 15" in all articles. And yes, I said it by myself, and I promised to revise the articles where I was aided by AI, but I do convince that Golden Hour is not related with this (not to mention Musgraves's other articles), since I was not aided by them on there. I would not even repute all of their assumptions in that ANI thread if I used AI in Golden Hour article. P.S) It was interesting to see your "Personally, I find it very disrespectful to be repeatedly lied to, but that's just me" comment regarding WP:BAIT behaviour. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

So why exactly is this article indistinguishable from every other AI music article, then -- including the ones that you, yourself, said incorporated AI? Why is every source summarized in the exact same way that AI summarizes sources, and why do they contain the same kind of source-to-text verification issues that show up in AI-generated text -- which, again, includes the text that you have said yourself that you used AI for?

How exactly does the text noted themes of emotional duality get attached to a review does not mention anything about emotional duality or themes thereof, or a claim appear that a song features lyrics in which the narrator expresses uncertainty about how to describe their feelings when the song contains no such lyrics, or blending traditional and contemporary sounds get attached to two reviews that do not mention traditional or contemporary sounds (nor synonyms like "modern," "classic," etc) let alone "blending" them? Why are all these source-to-text integrity issues attached to the exact same verbiage that AI spits out about music articles in general?

This is beyond WP:DUCK at this point. This is looking like a duck, quacking like a duck, holding up a sign saying "THIS IS A DUCK," and then getting offended and throwing around accusations of personal attacks when someone identifies it as a duck. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, it would be great when you noted these problems in Golden Hour's archived talk page.

1. "noted themes of emotional duality" - where is it?
2. The source states: "she’s not sure there’s a word to describe how things feel tonight". As I said before I tried my best to reword the article to avoid WP:CLOP and this is what I did.
3. Did you even see the Independent article? It states "Musgraves conjures up a feeling of lightness; marvelling at nature and love and the universe as she melds the traditional and futuristic."

And I'm not sure if I explained this before, but I'm not a native English so I don't know how to detect AI-generated texts (although I read the AI eassy), thus I cannot answer to "why exactly is this article indistinguishable from every other AI music article". I was once again accused of using AI when I created a page (I'll post here if I remeber the article). I explained to the user that I adopted Papago when I edit articles, and they understood and removed the AI tag from it.

I also want to know which part seems AI-generated, because as I stated I'm not capable of detecting those texts. I'm willing to fix them if they look too AI-generated, because I don't want my edits to be dismissed just because of these. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You do not need to use an AI detector or any other form of detection to know whether you used AI in your own writing, unless you are suffering from amnesia and do not have memories of your own writing process. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Should you return to this project, if you don't know which parts of something you wrote are LLM, then the the article should be entirely re-written. If I run a bakery and a baker tells me that they accidentally dropped a handful of pennies into an apple pie, if the baker can't identify which pie has the pennies, I have to assume that all of them do. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Papago advertises itself as an AI translator. Searching around, people seem to claim it uses neural machine translation rather than a large language model. Perhaps someone may be familiar with its translations and how different its models are. CMD (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

That's actually pretty good to know. Before Google Translate started using LLM, it was using NMT and it was much more useful. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:08, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I agree that Camilasdandelions has been using LLM tools to compose the prose. Too many edits I have seen of theirs carrying LLM signal phrases. But another major problem cropped up while I was looking for LLM traces: Camilasdandelions has copied source text with too-close paraphrasing. Only a few words are changed, and the reading flow is identical. At Pageant Material in March, Camilasdandelions added the text "On Pageant Material, Musgraves continues to explore themes of small-town life and staying grounded." The cited source says, "On 'Pageant Material,' Ms. Musgraves continues to explore themes of living in a small town and remaining grounded." I rolled the page back to before Camilasdandelions began working on it, but unfortunately it was approved as a Good Article while it contained this glaring violation. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing at this point, as I tried my best to reword that sentence and those two sentences are actually little different. And I believe you could just tag {{Close paraphrasing}} template on there, because I did not steal entire contents from the source. You just only detected a sole sentence and then reverted all of my edits at once, which applies to WP:CLOP#Extensive problems, but I don't think this is the case. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Noting the request at WP:CCI#Camilasdandelions. Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I brought only one here, but more have been identified at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations#Camilasdandelions, establishing a pattern. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Were all of those edits made in Pageant Material article? Plus, these edits were made a year (or two years ago), when I was very new at Wikipedia. I admitted, and I believe I addressed all of them raised there. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Your response here also fits the pattern of you denying or downplaying all of your violations. You must stop editing on Wikipedia until you figure out how to participate without AI and without violating the source copyright. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I admit if I clearly did mistake, like how I admitted my mistakes in my new era at Wikipedia and addressed most of my edits made during that period. No worries, I'll stop editing new articles unless those problems be more clear.

All I want is to know which part of my edits looks like AI-generated, since I don't want to be dismissed like this. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

All of it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I opened Golden Hour (Kacey Musgraves album), mentioned above, and checked "Produced with Daniel Tashian and Ian Fitchuk, Golden Hour emphasizes a sense of lightness, with lyrical themes centered on nature, love, and the universe". This is sourced from "Aided by co-writers and producers Daniel Tashian and Ian Fitchuk, both Nashville pros, Musgraves conjures up a feeling of lightness; marvelling at nature and love and the universe". This is quite close paraphrasing. I recommend looking through WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. CMD (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

And turning literally anything a source says into "emphasizing" (the source does not mention or imply anything being emphasized, the word has a meaning) and "themes" is classic AI slop. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked

Given the damage to the project from evasive disclosures and repeat copyright issues, I have indefinitely blocked Camilasdandelions from mainspace. They remain able and encouraged to participate here and in clean up Star Mississippi 00:30, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Unresponsive user Etherelsquid continues to improperly source assertions

Etherelsquid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Most recent edit to Wood stork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) shows a sample of their improper citationing, listing a bare URL for the top level of a governmental website. They have been warned at least 4 times. They continue to improperly source their edits. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

These are better references, but the cited sources do not support the assertions: - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Have they ever interacted with anyone? SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 03:08, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Their edit history since creating a user account on 12 May 2026 shows one reply in their talk page. But lots of changes that several senior users reverted. BhagyaMani (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Warrants an indef block. They've been given stern warnings in the past and yet they haven't changed. Plenty of their contribs were reverted. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 08:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Report on the Editing Conduct of User:Kahastok

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

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

Executive Summary

This report requests an administrative review of the editing conduct of Wikipedia user Kahastok, with particular attention to possible issues concerning Neutral Point of View (NPOV), civility, and edit-warring.

The purpose of this report is not to establish or speculate about the user’s nationality, political affiliation, employment, or personal motives. Instead, it examines publicly documented editing activity and statements made by the user in Wikipedia and Wikimedia discussions.

Wikipedia’s fundamental principles include maintaining a neutral point of view and treating fellow editors with respect and civility. (Wikipedia)

The evidence presented below indicates a sustained and highly concentrated involvement in articles concerning the Falkland Islands/Malvinas sovereignty dispute, accompanied by repeated reversions and explicit references to perceived Argentine POV. There are also documented examples of confrontational and dismissive language toward other editors.

These circumstances do not, by themselves, establish misconduct. However, taken together, they provide sufficient grounds for an administrator to review the relevant diffs, revision histories, and talk-page discussions.

1. Scope of the Investigation

The investigation focuses on four questions:

1. Whether Kahastok’s editing of Falkland Islands/Malvinas-related articles consistently complies with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy.
2. Whether the same sourcing and neutrality standards are applied consistently to competing viewpoints.
3. Whether repeated reversions constitute edit-warring or otherwise disruptive editing.
4. Whether the user’s conduct toward other editors is consistent with Wikipedia’s expectations of civility.

The investigation does not assume that supporting the British position, supporting the Argentine position, or concentrating one’s editing on a particular subject is itself a violation.

2. Concentration of Editing Activity

Kahastok has made extensive contributions to articles concerning the Falkland Islands/Malvinas and related sovereignty disputes.

Examples include:

• History of the Falkland Islands
• Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute
• Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)
• Luis Vernet
• Antonio Rivero
• 2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum
• South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute

The concentration of activity in a controversial historical and territorial subject is not, by itself, evidence of misconduct.

However, it is relevant context when examining whether the user’s repeated interventions apply Wikipedia’s neutrality, sourcing, and consensus standards consistently.

3. Repeated References to the Argentine Point of View

Several publicly visible edits demonstrate that Kahastok explicitly evaluates disputed content in terms of its relationship to the Argentine point of view.

27 May 2025 — History of the Falkland Islands

Kahastok reverted material with the edit summary:

“removing the bits that are inconvenient to Argentina breaks WP:NPOV”

On another edit concerning the same article, Kahastok stated that proposed changes:

“remove accurate and sourced statements that are uncomfortable to the Argentine POV”

and additionally objected to an image which the user characterized as having been created for propaganda purposes.

These comments demonstrate that the user is actively evaluating edits according to their perceived relationship to competing national viewpoints.

The relevant question for administrative review is whether this standard is applied symmetrically to material favoring different sides of the dispute.

4. Application of Sourcing and Original Research Standards

25 May 2025 — 2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum

Kahastok removed material while stating:

“This is WP:OR based on a primary source.”

The use of Wikipedia’s original-research and sourcing standards is legitimate when applied consistently.

However, because this article concerns a politically disputed subject, the underlying diff and sources should be reviewed to determine whether the same standards are consistently applied to competing interpretations.

5. Disputed Historical Terminology

15 June 2025 — Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

Kahastok reverted material and stated:

“plenty of captains arrived on the islands and left again, these aren’t included. This is a timeline of de facto control.”

This illustrates the user’s active role in determining which historical events should be included in the narrative of sovereignty and effective control.

Again, the relevant issue is not whether the user’s interpretation is British or Argentine, but whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied neutrally and supported by reliable sources.

6. Additional POV-Related Reversions

17 July 2025

Kahastok made a reversion described in the edit summary:

“rvt POV”

27 July 2025

In another discussion concerning the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, Kahastok stated:

“This isn’t really an argument Argentina makes though, is it?”

These examples further demonstrate the user’s repeated engagement with the question of whether particular material accurately represents the Argentine position.

They should be considered together with the underlying article diffs rather than treated as independent proof of bias.

7. January 2026 Reversions

3 January 2026

Kahastok made substantial reversions concerning:

• History of the Falkland Islands
• Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)

The edit summaries included:

“Wikipedia is not an exercise in ‘let’s see how much we can bias the article before someone reverts us’.”

Because these edits involved substantial amounts of contested material, the complete revision histories and corresponding talk-page discussions should be reviewed to determine whether the reversions were appropriate applications of Wikipedia policy or part of a broader pattern of reverting disputed material.

Wikipedia prohibits edit wars, defined as repeated overriding of another editor’s changes when editors disagree about article content, and encourages editors to resolve such disputes through discussion and consensus. (Wikipedia)

8. Conduct Toward Other Editors

A separate concern involves the tone used by Kahastok during disputes.

In a Wikimedia Commons discussion, Kahastok wrote:

“Now you’re being ridiculous on top of disruptive.”

In the same broader dispute, Kahastok wrote:

“I do not see how your reverting to the most biased option available and then yelling at us can be considered constructive.”

Kahastok also wrote:

“you now have a chance to prove you respect it”

These statements are relevant to an assessment of whether the user’s conduct consistently meets Wikipedia’s expectations of civility.

9. 2022 Meta-Wiki Discussion

A further example appears in a 2022 Meta-Wiki discussion.

Kahastok wrote:

“Thank you for another fine demonstration of why you were blocked on en.wiki.”

The same discussion included:

“largely because of this kind of BS.”

These statements go beyond disagreement about article content and refer to another editor’s previous disciplinary history while using explicitly dismissive language.

I am not asserting that these statements automatically constitute a formal personal attack. Rather, they are presented as evidence for administrators to evaluate under Wikipedia’s civility and conduct standards.

10. Edit-Warring: Request for Review

I am not claiming that every individual revert made by Kahastok constitutes edit-warring.

Instead, I request that administrators examine the relevant revision histories to determine whether there are repeated cycles of:

Editor A → Kahastok → Editor A → Kahastok

concerning the same disputed content.

If such repeated reversions are present, the relevant talk-page discussions should also be examined to determine whether the parties attempted to establish consensus or whether the dispute was primarily resolved through repeated reversion.

11. What This Report Does Not Claim

For the sake of accuracy, this report does not claim that:

• Kahastok is employed by the British government.
• Kahastok receives payment for editing Wikipedia.
• Kahastok belongs to a British propaganda organization.
• Kahastok coordinates Wikipedia activity with the British government.
• Kahastok operates undisclosed alternative accounts.
• Every edit made by Kahastok is incorrect.
• Every revert made by Kahastok constitutes edit-warring.
• The user’s nationality or language determines their editorial behavior.

No sufficient evidence has been established for those claims.

12. Assessment

The available evidence establishes several facts that merit closer examination:

First, Kahastok has a substantial and sustained involvement in politically and historically contentious Falkland Islands/Malvinas articles.

Second, numerous edits explicitly invoke NPOV, the Argentine point of view, sourcing, original research, or the characterization of historical events.

Third, the contribution history contains repeated reversions concerning disputed material.

Fourth, publicly accessible discussions contain several examples of confrontational or dismissive language toward other editors.

None of these facts, individually, proves bad faith.

However, their combination justifies an administrative review of the underlying diffs and discussions.

13. Requested Administrative Action

I respectfully request that administrators review:

1. The relevant revision histories of Falkland Islands/Malvinas-related articles.
2. The diffs underlying the cited reversions.
3. The corresponding talk-page discussions.
4. Whether NPOV and sourcing standards are being applied consistently to competing viewpoints.
5. Whether the pattern of reversions constitutes edit-warring.
6. Whether the user’s language toward other editors violates Wikipedia’s civility expectations.
7. Whether warnings, mediation, article-specific restrictions, or other administrative measures would be appropriate if violations are confirmed.

The purpose of this report is not to determine the political merits of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas dispute.

The purpose is to determine whether the documented editing and interpersonal conduct of User:Kahastok complies with Wikipedia’s own policies and community standards.

Conclusion

The evidence does not establish that Kahastok is a British government operative, paid propagandist, or otherwise acting on behalf of an external organization.

It does, however, establish a substantial pattern of involvement in a highly contentious subject, repeated disputes concerning POV and sourcing, numerous reversions, and several examples of confrontational language.

For these reasons, I believe that a neutral administrative review of the user’s conduct is warranted. BobbaFeet (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

BobbaFeet, you need to make your report in your own words, not use AI. You also have to make it much smaller. None of us are paid to read through this legal brief; keep it to 500 words or less is my advice. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Glancing over this...thing, and then looking at the OP's edit history, makes me raise an eyebrow and wonder if a boomerang for nationalistic POV editing might be in order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

After reading this automated innuendo that some robot cranked out at BobbaFeet's command, I am reminded of what Gertrude Stein wrote in 1937 about her childhood neighborhood in Oakland, California which had been demolished: "There is no there there." Kahastok has been an editor for about 20 years. Their editing activity peaked in the 2008 to 2010 time frame and has been declining for 15 years. Their most recent edit was over seven months ago. BobbaFeet has made no effort to to discuss their concerns with Kahastok. BobbaFeet has failed to notify Kahastok of this report. This is not an urgent incident or chronic behavioral issue and this report should be closed with a stern warning to BobbaFeet. Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Conduct concerns regarding User:Gurkubondinn – repeated allegations of AI use

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

---

I am bringing this here because I have had enough of being repeatedly questioned by User:Gurkubondinn about whether I am using AI in my edits.

I want to be clear about the background. I did previously use AI tools to help with grammar and fluency. This was raised with me in June, and I accepted the concerns. On 16 June, I said on my talk page that I would no longer use AI-assisted tools, including Grammarly, LLMs or similar tools, when editing Wikipedia. I have since stopped using them.

I understand why my previous edits were checked and I am not complaining about editors raising those concerns in the first place. What I have a problem with is Gurkubondinn continuing to question me about AI whenever I start editing again.

On 16 June, Gurkubondinn told me that I should refrain from making article-space edits until I had "adequately convinced" other editors that I would stop using LLM tools, and also accused me of being "untruthful".

I replied that I would stop using these tools.

Then on 9 August, after seeing that I was editing again, Gurkubondinn came back to my talk page and wrote:

"You have still not answered my questions, and you are editing again now. Are you still using AI to edit?"

I have now answered that question directly. I am not using AI tools in my editing.

I feel that this is becoming excessive. I have already acknowledged what I did before, I have stopped doing it, and I have answered the question. I do not think I should have to keep defending every edit I make against an assumption that I must be using AI.

If there is something wrong with one of my edits, then by all means point out the particular edit and explain what is wrong with it. I am willing to discuss any problems with my editing. But repeatedly asking me whether I am using AI, without pointing to evidence in a current edit, is becoming harassment in my view.

I am therefore asking uninvolved administrators to look at this situation and determine whether this continued questioning amounts to WP:HOUNDING or WP:HARASSMENT, and whether Gurkubondinn should be asked to stop pursuing me over this unless there is an actual issue with a specific edit.

I would simply like to be allowed to continue editing normally. If I make a problematic edit, it can be dealt with like any other editor's contribution. I do not think my previous use of AI should mean that every future contribution I make is automatically treated with suspicion.

As Gurkubondinn is an administrator, I would appreciate this being looked at by uninvolved administrators.

Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As Gurkubondinn is an administrator, I would appreciate this being looked at by uninvolved administrators.
Gurkubondinn has many permissions, but administrator is not one of them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:07, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

This request is probably AI-generated as it hallucinated him (Gurkubondinn) being an admin when he isn;t. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 04:29, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it, but I think that you, @Rizalninoynapoleon, should first iron out your facts before making this request. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 04:31, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I threw the original complaint into Pangram and it spat out 100% of this text is AI. @Rizalninoynapoleon: If you could provide diffs, that would be helpful. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:38, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

And still, I'm thinking this could turn into a WP:BOOMERANG for you due to AI-use, which is banned per WP:NOLLM. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 04:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Additional context: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Archive 11 § User:Rizalninoynapoleon, User talk:Rizalninoynapoleon § Concerns about your AI use. Gurkubondinn is not the only user to have raised concerns. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 04:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Where's the "repeatedly"? I see Gurkubondinn asked you on 16 June, when multiple G15-level AI articles had been found (see AIN thread linked above, sorry for no diff as I'm on mobile) and your only response to the AIN thread prior to that date had been to blame it on an assistant using your account. You only admitted to using AI tools yourself after the 16 June question, so it seems to me that question was reasonable. Then he asked you again when you returned to editing on 9 August, which is over a month ago, and as far as I can tell hasn't been back. So he's asked you two times about LLM usage? ^purring_maggot (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Rizalninoynapoleon since the account seems to be compromised due to failure to maintain proper account security. Someone using the account wrote "Its publication and subsequent editing occurred without my authorisation through actions taken by a former assistant who had access to the account. The individual is no longer employed and is no longer involved with the project. I apologise for any confusion or inconvenience that this may have caused." at the AI noticeboard at 08:55, 26 May 2026. We cannot be sure who is using this account at this point, and a Wikipedia account is for one person only. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

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

User:The-Pope removing LLMPRODs and AI-generated tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MoonsMoon – continued editing during an unresolved dispute on Dangrek Incident

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

---

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

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

I am requesting administrative review of MoonsMoon's editing conduct concerning Dangrek Incident.

This is not a request for administrators to decide the underlying historical dispute or to determine which characterization of the 1979 events is correct. The concern is the editing process: substantial article-level concerns were raised about neutrality, weight, and overall presentation; those concerns remained unresolved; MoonsMoon was explicitly asked to engage in discussion and consensus-building before continuing to make substantial additions; and substantial additions and restructuring subsequently continued.

1. Existing article-level dispute 

There has already been an RfC concerning the article's tone, use of eyewitness testimony, and encyclopedic presentation. A subsequent discussion was opened specifically to review the current article for neutrality, weight, and encyclopedic presentation.

The issue raised in that discussion was not simply whether individual statements had reliable citations. The concern was whether the cumulative selection, repetition, organization, prominence, and level of detail of the material produced an overall presentation that was proportionate to the treatment of the subject in the reliable secondary literature.

This distinction was made explicitly during the discussion. The discussion also acknowledged that the forced descent, shootings, minefields, deaths, and other abuses are extensively documented and deserve substantial coverage. The concern was instead whether different evidentiary propositions and different interpretations were being combined and presented with appropriate attribution and weight.

For example, the discussion distinguished between:

• the existence of mines and booby traps;
• the forced descent of refugees through mined terrain;
• the knowledge of particular Thai officials or military personnel concerning those dangers;
• the broader question of what decision-makers understood about the specific route;
• and the still broader question of how the operation should be characterized and what motives should be attributed to it.

These distinctions were discussed on the article talk page before the later editing described below.

2. The discussion was not simply abandoned without engagement 

MoonsMoon did participate in the initial discussion. On 22 August she stated that she was not going to continue a section-by-section debate and that she was "leaving it at that":

The other editors subsequently clarified that the underlying concern was the article's macro-level presentation rather than the sourcing of individual statements. On 23–26 August, the discussion explicitly returned to overall presentation, cumulative effect, depth of detail, quantity of text, and the need for collaborative consensus-building.

In particular, Hellapaul stated on 24 August that the concern was the cumulative effect of the article's structure and presentation and quoted the relevant NPOV/WEIGHT principles concerning overall presentation, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence, and imagery.

On 26 August, Hellapaul again stated that the concern was that the article was continuing to accumulate the same narrative and that further additions should be discussed collaboratively before being appended.

Thus, the issue was not that MoonsMoon was unaware that other editors disputed the article's overall presentation.

3. Explicit request to refrain from unilateral additions

On 26 August, Hellapaul posted a separate notice on MoonsMoon's user talk page.

The notice expressly identified the neutrality and overall-weight dispute, referred to WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONSENSUS, and asked MoonsMoon to refrain from making further unilateral changes while the dispute remained unresolved:

MoonsMoon replied on 27 August.

She disputed the characterization of the timeline and stated that she had previously engaged with feedback. She also argued that the objections concerning "narrative balance," weight and tone were too broad to halt the expansion of the article.

Most importantly for the present conduct issue, she acknowledged the concern about "bludgeoning the process" and stated that if specific alternative text was proposed it should be presented on the article talk page:

Hellapaul then responded by clarifying that the objections had already been elaborated before the August 26 edits and again explained that the issue concerned cumulative effect and overall presentation rather than merely the sourcing of individual statements. He explicitly recommended discussing the issue further before continuing to append more material.

The underlying dispute was therefore still unresolved after this exchange.

4. Requested move concerning "Preah Vihear massacre"

The article title was also the subject of a formal requested-move discussion.

The 30 June 2026 requested move proposed moving the article from Dangrek Incident to Preah Vihear massacre. The requested move was ultimately closed on 23 August 2026 with the result "no consensus":

The requested-move result did not prohibit the use of "Preah Vihear massacre" in the article. I am not presenting it as such.

It is nevertheless relevant to the present conduct issue because the terminology itself had been the subject of a formal, unresolved dispute immediately before the later expansion of the article.

5. Subsequent prominence of the disputed terminology

Following the no-consensus requested move, the article continued to develop around the "Preah Vihear Massacre" terminology.

The current article lead begins:

"The Dangrek Incident, also known as the Preah Vihear Massacre, or Preah Vihear massacre..."

The article also has a major section titled "Massacre at Preah Vihear", with subsections including "Mass shootings and landmine detonations" and "Survivors stranded in minefields."

I am not arguing that the term "Preah Vihear massacre" may not appear in the article. The point is that the terminology had just been the subject of a formal no-consensus requested move, while the separate article-level dispute concerning neutrality, weight and presentation was still unresolved.

The subsequent expansion therefore needs to be considered in the context of both unresolved discussions.

6. Continued substantial editing after the explicit request for consensus-building 

After the 26–27 August exchange, MoonsMoon continued making substantial additions and structural changes to the article.

For example:

• On 12 September, she added 460 bytes to "Memoirs and oral histories".
• On 13 September, she added 1,060 bytes to "Survivors stranded in minefields".
• On 14 September, she made further changes to "Survivors stranded in minefields" and "Criticism".

The relevant revisions are:

These are not being presented as evidence that every individual edit was improper. Some of them may be ordinary improvements in isolation.

The concern is the overall pattern and timing: substantial additions and restructuring continued after the article-level neutrality and weight concerns had been explicitly raised, after the editor had been specifically asked to refrain from further unilateral changes while those concerns remained unresolved, and without a consensus having been reached on the underlying dispute.

The September additions are also not merely corrections to existing wording. They include the expansion of entire narrative sections and the addition of substantial new material, particularly in the sections dealing with the massacre framing, survivor accounts, and minefields.

7. Why this is being raised as a conduct issue rather than another content dispute 

I recognize that editors can legitimately disagree about the historical interpretation of the event, the relative weight of sources, the use of survivor testimony, and the terminology used to describe the operation.

That is precisely why the article-level discussion was opened.

The conduct issue is separate.

The sequence is:

1. substantial concerns were raised about the article's overall neutrality, weight and presentation;

1. MoonsMoon initially engaged with those concerns;

1. the discussion then reached an impasse, with MoonsMoon stating that she was leaving the section-by-section debate;

1. the other editors clarified that the issue concerned the overall presentation rather than individual source verification;

1. on 26 August, MoonsMoon was explicitly asked on her user talk page to refrain from further unilateral changes and instead work toward consensus;

1. on 27 August, she acknowledged the dispute but rejected the proposition that the broad objections should halt the article's expansion;

1. the underlying dispute was not resolved;

1. substantial additions and restructuring subsequently continued.

The issue is therefore not simply "an editor disagrees with my preferred version of the article." The issue is whether substantial disputed expansion should continue in this manner while an unresolved article-level dispute remains active and after an explicit request has been made to resolve that dispute through collaboration and consensus.

8. Current status of the user-talk notification 

I have now notified MoonsMoon directly on her user talk page that I intend to seek administrative review of this conduct:

MoonsMoon subsequently acknowledged the notification with "Okay":

I am therefore not raising this without first informing the editor concerned.

9. Request for administrative intervention 

I am asking uninvolved administrators to review the conduct described above and determine whether administrative intervention is warranted.

In particular, I ask administrators to consider whether the continued substantial editing and expansion of disputed material, after the article-level neutrality and weight concerns had been explicitly raised and while those concerns remained unresolved, constitutes disruptive editing or an inappropriate failure to engage in the consensus process.

If administrators consider intervention warranted, I would ask for a proportionate remedy. This could include an admonishment, a restriction on substantial editing of the disputed material until the relevant discussions are resolved, or another proportionate editing restriction that administrators consider appropriate.

I am not asking administrators to determine whether the events should ultimately be characterized as a massacre, forced repatriation, pushback, or otherwise.

I am also not asking administrators to overturn the existing article title or to decide the requested-move dispute.

The immediate issue is whether the editing process described above is acceptable when a substantial article-level dispute remains unresolved and the editor has already been explicitly asked to seek consensus before continuing substantial additions.

I am willing to follow any administrative direction concerning how the underlying content dispute should proceed. Mumu1942 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Mumu1942, if you'd like to start a discussion here, you need to be doing it yourself, in your own words, and be as brief and detailed as possible. The English Wikipedia project is an encyclopedia written by humans communicating with each other, and nobody here wishes to have a discussion with a chatbot. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I had been working on this report for some time before posting it. I had collected the relevant diffs, dates and discussion history and then put everything together into one report.

As English is not my first language, I received some help with the formatting, translation and some wording. The structure and the points I raised came from the material I had prepared. I understand that the report was too long for ANI, and I can make it shorter and more focused. Mumu1942 (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Did you use AI to generate this comment? Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Now that it has been collapsed, I can just say that they used AI, and it was probably AI-generated enough to reach prohibited territory under WP:NOLLM Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 07:47, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Mumu1942: Please do not change existing comments you have made after others have already replied to them per the talk page guidelines. This is confusing for readers to follow the discussion. Please add new comments to the bottom of this section. I have undone your latest edit. Fork99 (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I want to ask for some admin help about MoonsMoon's editing on Dangrek Incident.

There is still a dispute on the talk page about the general balance and presentation of the article. My concern is not that the facts she adds should not be in the article. It is about the overall weight and the way the article is presented.

On 26 August, Hellapaul asked MoonsMoon on her talk page to stop making more changes while this was still being discussed. She answered on 27 August, but the main disagreement was not resolved.

The Requested Move from “Dangrek Incident” to “Preah Vihear massacre” also ended with no consensus on 23 August.

After that, MoonsMoon continued with quite important additions, for example:

• 12 September: +460 bytes, “Memoirs and oral histories”: Special:Diff/1374448304
• 13 September: +1,060 bytes, “Survivors stranded in minefields”: Special:Diff/1374748789
• 14 September: more edits to the same disputed material: Special:Diff/1374780361

So my concern is that the article is still under discussion for its overall balance, but new and quite substantial material is continuing to be added in the same direction.

I am not asking admins to decide which version of the history is correct. I am asking if it is appropriate to continue making substantial changes while this dispute is still unresolved, and if some admin intervention or warning is needed.

I have discussed the issue on the article talk page and notified MoonsMoon before opening this ANI. Mumu1942 (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

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

User:~2026-49793-14 — IP account harassment

User:~2026-49793-14 has posted several personal attacks and real-life threats against me on their talk page: User talk:~2026-49793-14. For example, "If you disrespect my great-great grandpa one more time I will personally come to your house and beat the shit out of you".

They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. GentleHillRacer (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)