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
  • 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}} ~~~~ 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

Randy Kryn, again.

I've already flounced from WP entirely once over this exact situation. I am locked out of that account, this account is verified as a sock of that account. Just, somebody, please deal with Randy's apparent desire to own entire swathes of the project.

Randy re-created a template that there was a dispute over and re-added it to a lot of pages where it had previously been. This proposal was discussed on the talk page, and the parties involved didn't agree on it then (Diff). To be clear, I am not claiming there was consensus not to do this, but rather that a reasonable editor would conclude it's a controversial edit and maybe not one to just plow ahead with. I removed his fait accompli and took it to the talk page of the template where he'd discussed it. In response to the removals:

• "Stop reverting the Mars map, I'll just have to revert them all. This is a good way to get permibanned" (Diff)
• "Do you have any more socks? Valereee, please intervene here, this is over the line in many ways, thanks." (Diff)
• Accusing me of hounding and aspersions (Diff)
• Request for him to leave my talk page alone (Diff)
• More aspersions in response to that request (Diff)
• Six more edits to my verified sockmaster account after being asked to stop commenting on my talk page doing some weird song and dance about this (verified) account being suspect (History)
• More hounding accusations (Diff)
• Accusing me of deleting a page without discussion. Only pertinent here because he repeats this a lot and the discussion is literally above on the same page (Diff) (Diff) etc and this false narrative has derailed many discussions now
• Edit summaries were all accusations of edit warring in response to a "Take it to the talk page" edit summary (Diff)
• "has been much lessened since he began writing aspersions about my work on Wikipedia on an off-wiki site, seemingly attempting to smear my name and work with mud that just doesn't stick (but repeated enough times...)" (Diff)

All in about twelve hours. I asked him about a half dozen times to strike the comments, and several times told him to take me to ANI if he sincerely believes all of that. The offsite comments are we're both members of WPO and Randy feels this should be weaponized? This has been going on in some form for a year over this damn template. Please, for the sake of Martian articles, ban both of us from that template and the newer iteration Randy made and ban us from adding or removing it from articles, give us a long overdue IBAN, RFA the template so calmer eyes can decide, and take how much he exerts ownership of articles seriously. There's reports complaining about this behaviour across the project for years. This is an utterly exhausting environment to try to edit in good faith in.

And before a passing admin calls this a content dispute: I have no issue if someone wants to make a substantive argument for the inclusion of the template I changed, but Randy's response to a talk page discussion was

When you revert your edit war of something which has existed on Wikipedia since 2012 (or before?) then I'll read you concerns (Diff) This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I think a two-way IBAN is necessary. You two clearly don't play nice with each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

My last ANI filing was literally just me asking for a two way IBAN. My perspective on this is I'm getting harassed, hounded, and endlessly accused by an editor who believes themselves to be above Wikipedia policies on discussion. That Randy is so consistent with the aspersion in a talk page discussions leads to people presuming he probably isn't just making up garbage on the fly, which makes it impossible to engage with when. I really hope an admin is willing to take the time to read through the older discussion here and see the repeated attempts to engage him civilly being met with accusations of edit warring, vandalism (which he was warned about and doubled down on), and so on. This is not a case of two equally poorly behaved editors, and Randy's amazing ability to simply bald-faced lie his way through serious discussions (see the above accusations of deleting without discussion being dropped repeatedly as context into the discussion section) seems to fly far too often here. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I read through the discussion on your talk page. That was enough to conclude that you two need to stop (or be stopped). I suggest you cease posting here before another admin blocks you for making personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I read through the discussion on your talk page.

Can you please read through the one that Randy has been insisting doesn't exist? Because that's sort of the important one to understand how we got here. That was weeks of asking him to engage, explaining with diffs why he was breaking pages in his refusal to read the discussion, dealing with accusations of vandalism, edit warring, etc. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the underlying content dispute. If you do not stop pressing this issue, which there was no consensus to sanction Randy for last time you were at ANI, you will likely be blocked for refusing to DROPTHESTICK. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

That is an extremely uncalled for and, frankly, inappropriate threat. Nobody was asking you to weigh in on the content dispute. I am not sure where that accusation even came from. Editors have a right to have their cases read and taken seriously. An admin weighing in after reading a fraction of the problems and openly threatening a filer for civilly pointing out they missed evidence is poor form. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You returned to Wikipedia and picked up where you left off, predictably leading to another dispute with Randy, which you're now trying to use to get him sanctioned. My comment was not a threat; it was a prediction. Based on my experience seeing other editors engaging in similar behavior, I think it highly likely that another admin will block you for tendentious editing if you choose to continue down this path. RE Editors have a right to have their cases read and taken seriously: you did, the last time you brought the conduct surrounding this exact content dispute to ANI. As I said before, I don't need to read that content dispute to know that there should be an IBAN between you and Randy, which is precisely what you asked for. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Except that every single diff of concern here is for behaviour from today. There is no relitigation. If you would like to point out one, singular part of my behaviour that rises to the level of posting on an editors talk page seven times after being asked not to, threatening people with bans for a standard revert, accusing people of edit warring, wikihounding, and casting aspersions, and telling third parties that fantastical versions of events took place that simply never happened, then I will eat my hat and permanently get out of the hair of everyone on this project.

That I can deal with a mountain of abuse from one editor over a period of months, return here, instantly face more abuse, and I'm somehow equally at fault for calling this behaviour out because "Oh he's feuding with Randy again" when the feuding is so intensely one-sided that I brought it to ANI last time, and this time, to request an IBAN is crazy. Randy loves framing everything in these wild narratives where all parties are engaging with the same intensity he is, which is why over and over again at ANI I've asked admins to just verify his damn narrative even once.

And I was active on commons before this here, this wasn't me coming out of retirement to feud with Randy. I returned to Mars articles because I'm a Mars SME. It's where I edited extensively and I do use those articles a fair bit, so I see major changes to them. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the diffs are from the discussion on your talk page and one other discussion. You asked me to read the original discussion that sparked this entire conflict. The only reason I would do that is if I were going to sanction Randy for that conduct, which I'm not going to do because the community already rejected sanctions for that conduct. As for the current conduct, I read what you wrote and the thread on your talk page, and concluded an IBAN is necessary. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this will probably be much of the basis for my appeal when this closes as only an IBAN. I do not know how an admin can fairly weigh in on an issue when their approach to some threads of evidence is simply ignoring it because of what it's believed to contain. I was not asking you to weigh in on the content, I was asking you, and other admins, to explain what could have been done differently to avoid this situation getting to where it is now. Not on the content side, but on the open refusal to engage side. Randy never engaged with the content dispute by his own explicit admission, so trying to frame this as bad behaviour from two editors stemming from a content dispute is, respectfully, horseshit.

Now we have Randy explicitly openly refusing to read the discussions along with an admin! I do not know how you can determine there is a content dispute underlying all of this when you refuse to see the evidence one party isn't engaging at all. I do not see the point in asking for a reasoned and considered ANI filing then doing this to editors. Randy hasn't provided a single diff here, you're basing your entire judgement on, by your own admission, half-read evidence from one party in a dispute and a vibe check. Chew me out for not dropping the stick all you want, but this is atrocious behaviour from an admin who has voluntarily involved themselves. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I was asking you, and other admins, to explain what could have been done differently to avoid this situation getting to where it is now. No, you did not. You asked me to read the thread [b]ecause that's sort of the important one to understand how we got here. What I am saying is that, right now, the issue is your and Randy's current conduct. What Randy did several months ago was already addressed at the last ANI thread. I'm unimpressed with both of your behavior right now. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Randy's current behaviour includes fantastical retellings of the events of the thread you were refusing to link, including going as far as to deny it existed as a core part of his argument

I'm unimpressed with both of your behavior right now.

I assure you the feeling is mutual. You're pretty far into looking for reasons to be pissed at me, and at this point you've got a few if you really want them. You've essentially ignored the content of the filing in favour of fixating on the timing of the edits. Cool, look into those. Sanction me for my bad behaviour. Admin or not, this is poor form from someone engaged in a discussion with lots of heat which could use a little light. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You came here asking for an IBAN. I obliged and proposed one. I'm not taking any administrative action here. The heat in this discussion is coming from your long, angry walls of text. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You’re not wrong. I’m exhausted. I am not responding well because this has been going on for such an absurd amount of time. Randy has basically openly harassed me since the start of all of this, but because there’s a technically somewhat interesting content dispute people haven’t bothered to look at the accusation fling in nearly every edit, nor the hear of civility that it took to get me to this point of burnout with this guy. Randy has always, every single time, changed his tone the seconds admins are around.

It’s happened time and time again, and almost every time there’s been a substantial ANI against Randy there’ve been editors coming forward highlighting years of his abusive WP:OWN issues.

I simply don’t mind anymore. Ive tried, in good faith, and constantly had a Randy gnashing out, chasing me to random wikiprojects, and fling shit. The evidence of the aspersions is clear as day, the evidence of bad faith engagement is clear as day. If people see my behaviour as unacceptable, then so be it. I disagree that much effort would have been applied to examining the evidence, but I really don’t think I expect better at this point.

Randy is the fourth long-term editor I’ve brought for sanctions in threads that have taken a similar arc of turning towards boomerang territory early. Much of that is my propensity for talking too much, but a hell of a lot of it is people thinking that it’s possible to understand a complex situation with a shotgun spray of diffs read. I do not see a reason to treat this process as serious right now, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect the outcome.

It’s not like this community’s gloss read of the situation will last. I’m not the first person that Randy’s come up against like this, and I won’t be the last. Eventually he’s going make a mistake too big for the community to pretend not to see, and until then you are all free to think of this situation however you will. All I’ve wanted, for months now, was not to have to deal with Randy Kryn. Somehow, after appealing for a mutual IBAN and twice for an actual IBAN, and a half dozen random accusations, it’s me. Of course. The one who wants to stop dealing with this. Because there was content involved. Thanks, Wikipedia community. Lovely judgement. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You can always just move on, let it go, and focus on other areas of the project.... No one is holding you to re-engage in a situation you already know to be contentious. I suggest contributing elsewhere on Wikipedia, regardless of whether any IBAN is imposed. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Look, at the end of the day, it's possible to want nothing to do with someone and to disagree with their edits. Any other context and waiting a few months to just adding a ton of the controversial solution to one page, then complaining about reverts on the grounds of how many are reverted, is textbook WP:FAITACCOMPLI

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change.

I disagreed and took it to the talk page, where right now there's a parallel discussion with someone broadly in Randy's camp that's been going just fine, because they're discussing. For some reason people seem to think I'm on the anti side of a content dispute, because, I presume, literacy is dead. Randy hit me with the barrage of aspersions above and continues to point to the number of edits that were reverted while still not talking about the content. The community appears unable to differentiate between a content dispute and a dispute where content is involved. Community's call, however it goes. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd really like it if people considered Randy's "oppose" in the context of him following me around the project so much that I've had to ask him if it's personal and I've been asking for a mutual, self-imposed IBAN for months. I do not understand why Randy insists on keeping an open line of communication to an editor who has made it repeatedly clear they don't want one, but I really hope it's clear from the talk page spree after being asked to leave me alone that this isn't normal. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

How did Randy reply to you asking if "it" was personal? Please add that diff, thanks. To tell the full truth, at that point I did not remember you and was wondering where the concern was coming from, and figured out that you were the Mars template guy who didn't like Drbogdan. No big deal, I thought, and then you have taken some kind of wiki vendetta about me to its heights, both on and off-wiki. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC) \

You're free to post whatever you think is ameliorating. I came away from that exchange on your talk page thinking we were good, so I'm not sure that we would have a different read on the result. What I'm trying to highlight is that I felt the need to ask you if it was personal in the first place. Admins: Considering Randy is still flinging accusations here, and the entire damn point of this ANI was him just lobbing constant accusations, maybe, I don't know, address it? There is clearly a behavioural issue from Randy in content disputes that goes just beyond us having an interpersonal issue here, and I'm far from the only person to run into Randy exerting ownership over pages. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

As an addendum, I'd appreciate any admin explaining to me how I should have handled this differently from the start. I made the change, took it to the talk page, solicited the feedback of a wikiproject for those changes, engaged with other editors, and have been open to being wrong since the start. It took months to do and Randy only chimed in after hundreds of replacements had been done, asking I undo everything before he'd acquiesce to reading the talk page discussion, which given subsequent edits meant hundreds of manual page edits. I stopped all editing the second he objected and took it to the talk page to work it out. In the meantime, he was breaking pages with careless reverts (Diff, note the navbox above the references). Legitimately, what was I supposed to have done differently here? Randy wasn't a party to any content discussions, he was a sidelined edit warrior communicating through aspersions in edit summaries. Completely sincere here: how should I have handled this differently to avoid these issues. Because it looks a lot like either "Just don't edit articles Randy edits" or "Randy's preferences take precedence over BRD" from where I'm sitting, especially with how keen people seem to be to limit the consideration to the overdue IBAN. I'm 100% sincere here and will take any feedback to heart. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think an iban means "don't edit articles the other person edits", that would leave too much to a runaway editor. Much of what you say above is incorrect but arguing with you is way too tedious for a human being, so I will activate my Randy AI. Hello Warren, good to meet you. Please revert your removal of the Mars template. RandyAI does not count hundreds of edits which had to be redone, this seems an exaggeration. Drink lots of water, be a good editor, and take an adequate amount of Vitamin C (at least 2,500 to 3,000 mgs a day divided between three or so time slots, morning, afternoon, eveniong). I will sign Randy's name here, as he is off somewhere uppercasing something or other, either that or not gone fishing. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Please revert your removal of the Mars template

Oh come on. Surely any admin can see how this bullshit will drive any sane, reasonable editor to madness when dragged out over a year? Randy clearly still believes it was reasonable to ask an editor to undo hundreds (yes, hundreds) of edits as a precondition of discussion. You were not entitled to demand I undo my edits. You were free to discuss them, and we are free to disagree like reasonable editors, but what you did was straight up say that you weren't going to participate until I had already done the things you wanted. No. Go away. If you want to have a voice, participate. If you don't want to participate, you don't get a voice. Your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine, here. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that, if you disagree about the way a template is set up, completely redesigning the whole thing to eliminate its central feature is not a great way to go about it (especially over the objections of other editors). The original version of the template, with the image map — Special:Permalink/1284899495 — is completely indistinguishable from the navbox you turned it into (Special:Permalink/1284899728). There's not even a passing resemblance; this de facto deleted the template, bypassing TfD, to create a new one in its place. This is kind of similar to a WP:HIJACK, and I'd object to it too.

On one hand, per WP:BOLD, there's a good case for trying out big redesigns this way, but if they're objected to, then I think the proper thing to do is just make a new template with the navbox you want, and then either nominate the old one for deletion at TfD or get consensus to replace it. If Randy was being a jerk after that, then that's its own thing, but as far as I can tell the basic premise of the whole first volume of this saga feels pointless. jp×g🗯️ 06:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if there's some part of the backstory I'm missing here; what I say here is based on the links you posted here (to the template talk page) and on reading the discussion and links there. jp×g🗯️ 06:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I hope whoever closes this decides to touch on the diffs above, as the entire discussion has derailed with a content dispute. Regardless of any content dispute, I would expect to be sanctioned for the above behaviour. In this filing, Randy has thrown around several serious accusations. Not once, before or after, has he bothered to provide a single diff, instead declaring evidence too burdensome for the community. The community seems unconcerned by this fact. If it is determined the appropriate outcome for evidenced harassment, a year of stonewalling and WP:OWN behavior, edit warring, and attacking edit summaries is acceptable, then this community has decided its standards are capricious.

Here we have a massive thread with evidenced behavioral issues turning into a unilateral boomerang without a single person (unless I missed someone), including admins, commenting on the asepersions. This filing was not made in response to a content dispute, it was made in response to a dozen aspersions thrown in very short order, including repeated talk page harassment. Randy was given a specific threshold; if he kept trying to engage without striking any of his aspersions that were flowing freely, that I would take him to ANI. Here, the community has determined that the proximity to returning from a wikibreak to deal with a fait accompli is such an offence that Randy’s behaviour doesn’t even warrant a discussion.

There are times when it feels very easy to see through the veneers of bureaucratic language and all-caps rules we love so much and I’m instantly reminded that this place has far more in common with a Facebook group than I would like to admit, especially when it comes to intellectual honesty and rigour. I cannot be asked to believe what is happening here today is a reasonable, coherent outcome.

It requires an astounding level of cognitive dissonance to skip the entire line of evidence of harassment and jump straight to sanctioning the person whose solution provided an outcome where neither party would have any say in the content dispute. It takes an equal level of cognitive dissonance to look at a situation where one editor has asked for an IBAN for a year and the other repeatedly refused. I proposed banning myself from the template issues specifically to sidestep concerns I may be trying to win a contend dispute. The only way that can be read as an attempt to win a content dispute is if everyone believes that I believe I am do in the right that of left up to the community without Randy or I, “my version” would instantly “win”. That is not an assumption of good faith.

Several editors here have asked me why, if Randy was being so challenging to work with, I didn’t just do X, Y, or Z. Well, I did, basically every time. I followed every step I could for dispute resolution and still ended up with torrents of accusations in edit summaries and talk pages. The only thing I didn’t do was leave it alone, which apparently I should have. Why, pray tell, should I have left it alone? Because the editor I’m disagreeing with is so willing to go off the deep end to avoid discussion that it renders an area wholly uneditable? Because that’s the outcome when Randy is allowed to openly declare with an admin present that he will not engage in a discussion until edits he wants are done first, and none of you here can argue that is an acceptable approach to editing. Surely that is the standard we want to set for behavioural issues in content disputes: if there is a content dispute, the side that screams the most wins if the other doesn’t remove themselves from the situation. Excellent. Brilliant judgement, Wikipedians. You did it. You solved the problem. If this was a me issue we wouldn’t have a decade of similar issues reported with Randy. See you all at the appeal after Randy does this yet again to yet another topic, I suppose.

I reject any call that my return to remove the template was done in bad faith, while sidestepping any discussion of Randy’s blatant fait accompli. The primary behavioural evidence against me today, discounting any new ones since I decided speaking freely is worth more than consequences here, is that I returned from a wikibreak to remove a template from a large number of pages. The number is irrelevant, per WP:FAITACCOMPLI, and Randy’s edit was inappropriate to do unilaterally and without discussion when Randy already had reason to believe it would be contentious (again, per WP:FAITACCOMPLI), as the exact solution of creating a template as a new thing and adding it to the page was discussed previously. An entire line of the original filing was dedicated to making it clear that this exact thing that happens was previously discussed in April, and the amount of editors who seem to be rushing to explain that to each other in their sanction votes makes it pretty clear that people aren’t putting much effort into reading this. If some admins and editors here want to openly refuse to read the discussions that lead to this for fear of wading into a content dispute, then they miss the context of why the removal was appropriate. I cannot defend myself if people view the entire context of the action they want to judge me for as part of a content dispute they’re not going to read.

Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Addendum

Since filing this, Randy has made a lot of accusations and has backed up none. He has continued tossing around accusations but treats any evidence on his part as a burden for others he's saving them from:

• even counting any diffs I could provide but choose not to (piling on) (Link)
• (I haven't provided any diffs, so as not to pile on) ([1])
• Much of what you say above is incorrect but arguing with you is way too tedious for a human being ([2])

Considering we have here an admin openly stating they won't read linked evidence, nobody has asked Randy for any diffs, and people are taking Randy's statements at face value no matter what evidence to the contrary I provide, I'm rapidly reminded of why I flounced the last time I asked admins to sincerely consider Randy's behaviour. The standards Randy is being held to here could not get any lower. We have him repeatedly lying about how interactions played out, misrepresenting which one of us dropped the stick first, and simply repeating the behaviour that got him dragged to ANI in the first place. The reason I brought him here is for almost a damn year Randy has responded instantly to edits he doesn't like with aspersions. I get he's mostly an unblockable but this is getting blatant.

It takes far less energy to tell a lie than to counteract it. If you don't want walls of text, maybe start responding to ANI filings by not fishing for how you can bean the filer at the same time so people don't feel they need to defend themselves from an impending boomerang. I don't care that you are all familiar with Randy's work, start looking at his beheviour. I haven't had a behavioural sanction once, a fact I suspect is about to change with this reply and Voort's itchy trigger finger, but if you're going to give Randy the benefit of the doubt as an unblockable, then at least extend the same courtesy to me as someone who has consistently identified long-term problematic editors and brought them to ANI only for the filing to look exactly like this. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I was blocked in April 2024, what are you talking about? Jeez, you have something going on with me and I venture it's much more than Wikipedia stuff. Hopefully you will not be blocked for anything you say about me, by any admin, your rants are probably ranted in good faith even if your need to insult me overrides how you normally behave (I don't know how that is, up until you came to my talk page to ask if I had a problem with you I didn't remember you from past discussions until reminded of a specific). What we have here is a failure to prove that your insults have any basis in fact, and a need to gather new diffs from this discussion to point to in your multi-site attempts to muddy my work on Wikipedia. Mud does stick when repeated enough (a proven psychological ploy), and people who are willing to do deep dives are few, so how about easing up on those needs and get back to editing (have you edited anything else since you came back after months away to revert my 17 or so edits?). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Mud does stick when repeated enough (a proven psychological ploy)

Worth remembering when discussing things with a bad faith editor who loves throwing accusations around but views evidence as too bothersome for others to deal with! Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: IBAN (Randy Kryn and Warrenmck a.k.a. Wikibreaksock)

Randy Kryn (talk · contribs) and Warrenmck (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Wikibreaksock (talk · contribs)) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

i agree with GLL. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, that's the easy way to stop conversation. Warren feels very strongly about me, expressed here and off wiki, almost all of it, in my opinion, imaginary, and if someone actually takes the time to read all of the cites and diffs above, not even counting any diffs I could provide but choose not to (piling on), might understand why I think it's imaginary. But we should be able to talk about it as Wikipedians in a civilized way, not forcefully disconnected. At least someone could moderate a talk between us by asking questions and creating a substantial conversation. I can't understand much of what Warren is zapping at me for and he, me. Would be nice to have a third person asking the right questions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Whats your response to the hounding and harrassment allegations? 37.186.32.157 (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

By reverting my work with something like 17 reverts immediately upon coming back to Wikipedia, then when I reverted one of those was quickly reverted, Warren seems to be the one hounding and harassing. His first post upon returning today set the tone of his return. When I complained about the mass removals he continuously asked me to take him to ANI over these actions. I overstepped by answering him on his talk page when asked not to post there right in the midst of a discussion, and apologize for that, possibly my only WikiSin in this entire multiple-ANI overreach. In short, Warren returned and instantly reverted my edits after a semi-recent long period of continued mudslinging at me off-wiki, which I think is really low to do to a fellow Wikipedian, and then complains at my reaction. If anyone thinks he is the wronged one here then, in my opinion, they haven't yet dove into the diffs and discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

When I complained about the mass removals he continuously asked me to take him to ANI over these actions.

This is what I mean about Randy’s fantastical versions of events that get taken seriously for no reason. At no point did I ask him to take me to ANI over his edits. What I told him to take me to ANI for was these accusations he felt appropriate to lob since the second I made an edit he didn’t like. Now that it’s at ANI, he’s framing it as something completely different. Surely the admins have been around the block enough times to know when they’re being taken for a ride.

This is very similar to his oppose vote where he asks for a moderating voice to come between us to resolve the content dispute, but that exact thing already happened and Randy spent the time getting warned for aspersions and refusing to engage until the edits he wanted were done. Those threads are here and here. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. While I agree with Voorts that Randy took the bait, I think Warrenmk's behavior is the problem here. Warrenmk has been back on wiki for two days, and within 24-hours has filed an ANI complaint. Giving a 2-way ban would be rewarding shit stirring. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I think Warrenmk's behavior is the problem here.

Not one claim has been made about my behaviour, beyond some very nebulous claims which are, in fact, the reason this ANI filing is here. No diffs or evidence have been provided at any point for any behavioural claim against me. I would certainly appreciate it if you'd let me know what you found so convincing so I can make sure to address it. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Oppose Randy needs a cban at this point Joe Antifa (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

From an account with 4 edits who immediately jumps into a contentious topic. I have a feeling a CU will end up striking this argument. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Mars is called an enemy planet for a reason. Joe Antifa (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support It does seem like neither party is able to work well with the other. Simonm223 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  While obviously I agree with the IBAN, I think it needs to be paired with an enforced call for both of us to leave those templates alone considering the fait accompli. I’m happy to leave these templates alone, but I haven’t seen any evidence Randy is open to the possibility that his preferred version doesn’t stay. I’m perfectly willing to leave this whole thing up to uninvolved editors, permanently. I don’t believe my version is absolutely right, I just believe that a reasoned argument shouldn’t have to make room for an editor’s unarticulated preferences.

  I’d really appreciate it if an ANI filing of a behavioural issue where one side brings receipts and the other doesn’t bring any just get glossed as a dispute between editors and moved on from. Any editor with less name recognition than Randy would be instantly sanctioned for the behaviour evidenced here. Seeing as I’ve literally never faced a behavioural sanction at ANI, ever, I’m not sure why this is being mapped as two equally problematic editors, especially when one party isn’t even providing diffs for claims.

  Regardless of anything the template name shouldn’t be servicing as a shrine to an editor removed for promotional content, but I didn’t want to tag that issue as it may have looked like harassing Randy. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  The name Drbogdan is used so people don't think I created the template (which is now named {{Drbogdan Mars feature map}}), which was in most part Drbogdan's. You initially removed it without discussion and put a navbox under its long-time name, thus erasing the template, then reverted my attempts to return it. Not wanting to go into 3RR territory I asked you to return it, and walls of text ensued. I eventually let you get your way in keeping the navbox you replaced it with and then recreated it, which you agreed to, under this name a few months (not seven months as you claim) later. As for a iban, I don't know how that would work if we often edit the same topics and topic areas, does it mean just not mentioning the others name or addressing each other directly, and does countering the other's logic (or lack of logic) in a discussion break the iban. Would commenting on AfD's and ANI threads, that you often created under your Warrenmck name, break the ban? In the meantime, could an administrator revert the Mars feature map removals and return them to the many pages that Warren removed them from yesterday? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Not wanting to go into 3RR territory I asked you to return it, and walls of text ensued

  I'm the one who stopped reverting before 3RR territory. The last reverts were yours after my second revert, which contained accusations in the edit summary (diff). I bowed out and took it to the talk page rather than 3RR it, which is why there are still live pages with the template you prefer (Viking 1). Seriously, why am I having to defend myself from an alternate version of reality? This straight up isn't how this situation played out at all. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  IBANs prevent you from doing the following: editing the other user's user and user talk pages, reply to them in discussions, ping them, make any direct or indirect reference to them anywhere on Wikipedia, undo their edits in any way, or thank them for edits. This is subject to the usual exceptions that clarification requests and appeals are allowed. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  undo their edits in any way

  Which is why this needs a restriction on us editing those templates. I am comfortable leaving it up to other editors. I hope Randy is as well. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support It has become abundantly clear that these two cannot collaborate productively, so this IBAN is needed to prevent further disruption. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Adding on some extended rationale: REAL_MOUSE_IRL put it perfectly below. On top of that, the arguments in this very thread show that neither editor can have a productive discussion with the other. However, I don't think either user's conduct rises to an indef. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  Further comment: I oppose a one-way IBAN for Warren as basically saying that Randy wins the content dispute, and I oppose indeffing Warren because he has shown that he can be a productive editor when not interacting with Randy. A two-way IBAN would be the best solution here. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not see Randy's behavior here as problematic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks Bgsu98, a voice of reason. Voorts, I've never studied ibans. Since Warren and I often edit in the same topic areas (and he accused me of following him and I had to explain 'watchlists' to him), and I often comment at ANI and AfD, which Warren favors and was often found at, would simply commenting on or reverting one another's edits break the iban? I don't care if he addresses me, so I won't be complaining about him breaking an iban, so he has nothing to worry about there (not my style, he can "talk" to me all he wants about anything), but if an iban is placed I have the feeling he'll be watching me like two or more hawks to catch me if I slip up. The Mars template, on the other hand, deserves to be put back on the 17 or so pages that Warren removed it from yesterday, and I hope an admin can do so. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: Like I said above, reverts are covered by IBANs, as is commenting on them anywhere on the site. WP:IBAN has a full list of restricted activities, which I spelled out in an earlier reply. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks QuicoleJR, that seems very restrictive in my ability to counter incorrect statements or actions, so again I oppose an Iban. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  (and he accused me of following him and I had to explain 'watchlists' to him)

  The specific accusation was that Randy followed me to an unrelated wikiproject to talk smack following a disagreement on Mars edits (Diff). The previous hounding ANI was closed due to a flounce with a statement While there was merit in the original report. Randy appears pathologically incapable of presenting the facts of any prior case neutrally, and he has provided no diffs at all here. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I did not follow you to "another wikiproject". I saw the change on my watchlist. Then commented where comment was needed. Your incorrect insults still come, and that is fine with me as well as neutral editors can follow up to find out who is correct and who is just trying their best to get another editor in trouble. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't take you to ANI twice, ask you for a self-imposed IBAN you rejected, and arrive at the conclusion that the outcome I want is one where the dispute we have is taken out of our hands, and ask you on your page if you had some personal issue with me that was causing you to follow me around the project being contrarian because I want to watch you "like two or more hawks". I very, very, very clearly want absolutely nothing to do with you on this project. That you have a propensity to exert ownership on articles in areas I edit in is why I asked admins to consider taking that issue seriously, but again it appears that your diffless mudlinging has won people over to the idea that you must have been acting civilly all along and this is just a breakdown in communication between editors, rather than this being some kind of weird protracted Randy-specific behaviour issue that has been commented on by editors time and time again. Treating this as a problem that can be solved with a mere IBAN is absurd, because I am very clearly not the only editor who has run up against pages you own.

  It isn't lost on me that you decided to recreate and re-add the template as a memorial to Drbogdan, after months of not even looking at this, within days of him trying canvass you in an ANU filing at commons that got him removed from that project, as well. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, again, simple language. I never have followed you. Do you still not understand watchlists? I added Drbogdan's name to assure that people didn't think I created the template, and to give credit where credit is due (see talk page at {{Drbogdan Mars feature map}}. If an iban is placed please make it one-way, as I have no objection to Warren commenting on-Wiki on anything I say or do. Just that he gets it wrong pretty close to 100% of the time. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  You created that template on 11/9 (Diff). He tried canvassing you on Commons on on 11/5 (Diff). Before that you hadn't done anything with the Mars templates as far as I know since April. I don't think it's unreasonable to see a link there, but nor do I think that's anything wrong, rather it just strains credulity for you to pin everything to your watchlist. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's very weird to see a template named after a user, all the more so when it memorializes an editor who was booted for wasting the community's time. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  You shouldn't have gone to his talk page when this all started. You took the bait, and I don't foresee you not being able to take the bait going forward. That's why I think the IBAN should be two way. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Good point Voorts. For taking bait I deserve a trout (the last fish I ever caught as a teenager was an alligator gar, and was so impressed by the majesty of it that it was thrown back and I never fished again). I'm not sure how to act in an iban if a major incorrectness comes up (such as the removal of all of the Mars feature templates from their pages which is still standing and, I believe, people are shying away from adding it back because of the noise level) and will, if it is applied and if I may, rely on you to guide me a bit if I come by to ask on your talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  You took the bait

  Sorry, I would like to know why an admin is here implying I baited an editor for simply reverting their controversial changes and taking it to the talk page. Why am I being treated as a bad faith editor here? Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Even if an incorrect assumption you must admit that your actions can be read out as baiting me by, with your very first mainspace edits after coming back on Wikipedia after rage quitting, reverting 17 or so of my edits (I haven't counted them), and I fell for it. My fault. I don't know what you're talking about the good doctor pinging me from Commons, that's his right. If that had something to do with me remembering to recreate his template, and I can't recall if it did or not (I've been meaning to recreate it for a few months), so what? Drbogdan is not the boogeyman, and is missed by some (me) for his many good science edits (he has over 90,000 edits with a very low reversal rate, and hopefully he makes it back on-wiki the next time he requests that his ban be lifted). But naming the template afterh him is, as I repeated, to give credit where good credit is due. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban sanctioned on Warrenmck. These antics appear to be persistent, tendentious editing with a clear focus on dragging Randy through the mud. I find that Randy has been attempting to collaborate with Warren, much to little or no avail in their crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I by no means think we should bar editors from editing a template over such pettiness, and would hope Warren would have taken a step back rather than instigating this situation further upon their return, but I digress. It is clear to me that Warren is not going to let this one go and is intent on getting Randy sanctioned because they disagree on a content dispute. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 15:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I find that Randy has been attempting to collaborate with Warren

  No. Absolutely fucking not. I will eat a site ban rather than let this one stand. I have, for months, asked randy to either engage in a content discussion or disengage entirely. I provided a diff here of him saying "no" in response to a request that he engage in discussion. Here's a diff for you: Diff. That's why I've asked people to read the discussion thread that started all this. He has responded by accusing me of things nonstop the second we interacted, which he has been warned about before. Find me an instance of Randy trying to engage with me and me bowing out, and I'll eat my hat. Seriously.

  It is clear to me that Warren is not going to let this one go and is intent on getting Randy sanctioned because they disagree on a content dispute

  The sanction I asked for for Randy, an IBAN and a ban from editing on those templates, I also asked for for myself. I have asked for no sanction for Randy I am not also fully willing to take myself. I am only objecting to an IBAN in a vacuum because I do not feel it will solve these issues entirely. Beyond that, Strebe came in agreeing with Randy:

  I think the article is better with the content, whatever its flaws; I do no see it in violation of any policy; and, while objections ought to be respected and debated, the bias needs to be toward keeping useful content, not deleting it on debatable technicalities. Finding ways to improve the content would be much better.

  My reply to that:

  all along my only point of contention has been that changes be made with discussion, not by fiat. Feel free to act as a third party here. My proposal above was that if this content must be displayed that this image be used instead with links in the description. That solves the formatting and accessibility issues, keeps the same content, and is far more readable.

  Emphasis added. Why would someone unyielding in a content dispute invite a third party who openly disagrees with their stance in advance to weigh in as a third party? Because I am acting in good faith, and don't own the page. Why would my entire ask at this ANI be "take this out of both of our hands" if I was so invested in the outcome? Randy's constant unevidenced horseshit has convinced people that there's a deeper dispute around the substance of this than there actually is. I have zero issue with being in the wrong on the content dispute. Hell, there was another image map dispute Randy and I were in and I ended up finding his stance convincing and changing my mind. My issue is, and has always been, that Randy has never once engaged in the content dispute except to insist it be changed back. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  The thing which I don't understand is this. If you felt Randy wasn't sufficiently engaging in the content dispute, why didn't you just do what we should all do in such situations and build a consensus without them? If the community came to a consensus that your version was better, Randy's view would be largely irrelevant even if they had sufficiently engaged. Ultimately trying to decide whether one or both editors have discussed "enough" is always tricky & arguably a bit pointless in the these disputes. Instead the solution is for these two editors to stop just arguing among themselves and definitely no edit warring and instead use some form of WP:dispute resolution to get more feedback to resolve the dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  The thing which I don't understand is this. If you felt Randy wasn't sufficiently engaging in the content dispute, why didn't you just do what we should all do in such situations and build a consensus without them?

  I literally had been. You can find me engaging with other editors who share Randy's perspective and not shutting them down, because I've been wrong about imagemaps before and again, I don't own this place. The problem was that Randy objected to anything being done to the templates without his approval, but he was refusing to engage directly with the process unless an admin was asking him questions. Feel free to read through the thread above; Randy was a one trick pony only content if the templates were reverted as a prelude to any discussion. I even posted about the issue on the Mars Task Force page to elicit more feedback from other editors. I'm seriously hitting a wall with people accusing me of trying to win a content dispute this way after how much effort I've put into this damn situation to do everything the right way.

  That's why I'm clearly going mad at the tail end of this ANI: as far as I can tell, what I'm being told I should have done is exactly what I did. Randy's complete stonewalling of the entire process simply meant nothing could get done. When it was clear there wasn't going to be a consensus process because of all of this, I left it alone for five months hoping that other editors would get to it instead. I only came back to that topic when Randy clearly felt enough time had passed for him to just unilaterally dump the old templates back as a fait accompli, bypassing any need for discussion. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, I actually want to quickly address something I missed on my first read:

  If you felt Randy wasn't sufficiently engaging in the content dispute

  I want to be very clear I'm not just accusing Randy. Randy explictly stated he would not engage in the discussion section of the template page until the changes he wanted were enacted. This is from the wider consensus building discussion you asked about at the Mars Task Force:

  When you objected I completely ceased all editing and raised it here, which leaves me with a slew of semi-fixed articles to address which are being left alone right now for zero reason you've been willing to articulate. I'm not sure what more I can do, here, because you're just demanding I do what you say and accusing me of all kinds of malfeasance for saying "Not without a reason."

  Randy's reply:

  tltr , when you revert back to the long-term template (since 2012) I'll read your post.

  I think there's a difference between "I do not think this person is discussing this sufficiently" and an open refusal to engage. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  You're still missing the point. Were you able to build a clear consensus for your edits? If yes, then Randy's objections were completely & utterly irrelevant. If you failed to, then I guess your edits lack sufficient support and you needed to cease making them and definitely not edit warring over them. Even more if you came back to edit war over them after a long break. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Also while I don't think Randy demanding reversion before they would discuss is right, it was also utterly ridiculous that you refused the request since WP:BRD and WP:Status quo does support returning to the version before your bold edits, as it would be the end result if you could not achieve consensus for some change (again with or without Randy's participation). Ultimately I don't understand why one of you couldn't just be the better editor and do what's right for Wikipedia instead of demanding you get your own way. Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Please keep in mind Randy objected multiple months into the process, and at that point changing the template back would stick a fixed-width image map into the navigation section of the pages. That was laterally my only objection to the revert per BRD, which I did explain there. Reverting it to Randy's preferred state would have been several hundred edits to get everything back to a prior state. I was, and always have been, willing to do that, but I wanted something more than "I liked it put it back". As for consensus, we had multiple editors comment on the temperature being too high to want to weigh in. That's one reason I left it completely alone for five months. My solution wasn't "Plow ahead anyways and piss off Randy", it was to leave it alone completely and hope other editors weighed in. Randy's solution was to plow ahead with a solution that had already been discussed as controversial. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I suppose I should have used "compromise" or "communicate" rather than "collaborate", but it goes both ways in any dispute. Warren, from my outside perspective, it appears Randy opposed something, you opposed their opposition and escalated a known issue further. That is on you for perpetuating this issue. Also, nitpicking every response is not really going to help your case here... — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  it appears Randy opposed something, you opposed their opposition and escalated a known issue further

  Randy weighed in on the tail end of months of effort to clean up that template on a bunch of pages. He objected to it and immediately started reverting everything in a way that broke pages. When he objected, I froze all editing and took it to the talk page and tried to understand his perspective. Randy's stance was that he wouldn't even read the conversation until I undid the aforementioned months of work first (Diff). There are diffs for all of these claims. Again, I stopped all editing and took it to the talk page. I didn't even finish the editing process as Randy was objecting still and I didn't want to plow over his work. That's why I reverted his fait accompli; the articles had been left in a frozen state of that dispute, and I didn't touch it for months despite being active on the project in hopes that other editors would see it and take over.

  To repeat, what I was supposed to do differently? I paused all editing, took it to the talk page, engaged the user in question, never just continued ahead without consensus despite his objections even now months later. In that time Randy was actively breaking pages with his reverts, accusing me of vandalism in edit summaries, and misrepresented his own and my behaviour routinely the second it came time for scrutiny. I'm responding to every little thing here because people seem hellbent on interpreting this as an interpersonal dispute between two users and not a massive WP:OWN and WP:STONEWALL case. Above, you say

  It is clear to me that Warren is not going to let this one go and is intent on getting Randy sanctioned because they disagree on a content dispute

  I'd already let it go for the better part of the year. I am not the editor who came back to a stale discussion and attempted to fait accompli it. I have already asked someone who agrees with randy to be our neutral third party. On what planet am I trying to game a content dispute? Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  To state the obvious if the pages were broken but you did not have consensus for your version, the simplest solution instead of coming back to edit warring was to come back and finally fulfil Randy's request to revert to the non-broken but disliked by you older version. Then maybe there would finally be discussion and perhaps there would be chance for improvement. Hopefully Randy would finally have participated although either way, as I said above it's irrelevant. If Randy's behaviour ever came under future review, their refusal to discuss until reversion may come under great scrutiny. Instead we're here not because you didn't do that but decided once again your version was clearly better despite there being no consensus for it. Just to re-iterate, if you only wanted to fix the broken stuff you could have reverted to the version before it all began when it was not broken in 2012 or whatever. (If there were some changes in code, articles names etc since then, it would be fine to fix this provided you returned as far as possible to the version before the whole stupid mess begun.) I'd note also you seem to be proving here that in at least one way Randy was better than you. Despite wanting a complete return to the older version they let it all stay as it was broken or frozen or whatever in that time instead of taking the chance to go back when you had left. It was you who came back and decided to use the chance to instead try to force through you preferred version before you obtained consensus instead of either returning it to the old version Randy preferred or just letting it be like Randy had and let wait until someone else eventually decided to deal with the mess you both created by both of you being so recalcitrant. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Randy's preferred version introduces accessibility issues, which Randy hadn't touched on. In the absence for any articulated reason for wanting that version back beyond personal preference, it's worth leaving the WP:ACCESS-compliant version live.

  Instead we're here not because you didn't do that but decided once again your version was clearly better despite there being no consensus for it. Just to re-iterate

  Again, what Randy did was explicitly talked about on the talk pages. These templates break page rendering and introduce accessibility issues.

  instead try to force through you preferred version before you obtained consensus instead of either returning it to the old version Randy preferred

  Look, I'm not going to twist myself in knots apologizing for removing accessibility-breaking content being readded by an edit warring editor who refused to engage in the discussion around edits he wanted. If any other editor had simply waited out a controversial edit they wanted then attempted to add it to a bunch of pages, we'd correctly map that as poor form. Add accessibility and rendering issues on top of it, and we have specific policy reasons for the status quo to wait to see if that template is sufficiently important to justify breaking accessibility. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry I meant" Instead we're here because you didn't do that but decided once again your version was clearly better despite there being no consensus for it" Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Are we? Or are we here because Randy thought his version was better and tried to fait accompli it and then launched a torrent of aspersions? Because I seem to recall the whole thing with the template happening in parallel to me repeatedly asking him to strike the aspersions, which he just kept bringing over and over. Seriously, this ANI has become a farce as every editor has decided to fixate on the content dispute and insist that's the issue despite a big ol pile of diffs above everyone's elected to ignore. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Like, to be clear, this filing wasn’t because of the template dispute (though I think it’s impossible to fully separate) but rather that Randy was casting endless aspersions between edit summaries and talk pages. I asked him repeatedly to stop, he didn’t, I gave him multiple off-ramps, he kept going. I asked him one last time to strike the aspersions before continuing to respond to everything I say or I’d take it to ANI, he didn’t, and here we are. The issue is the damn behaviour! 77.250.143.134 (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  This was me (logged out), sorry! Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I suggest Randy and Warren/Wikibreaksock refrain from commenting further unless asked a question by an uninvolved party. This back-and-forth is bloating the thread without adding much clarity. Remember: you're trying to convince the community, not each other. It's okay to let the other person be wrong; uninvolved editors can suss out the fact from the fiction. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Look, at this point I've provided a fair amount of evidence and randy hasn't put forward a single diff. Immediately above you we have an editor saying I find that Randy has been attempting to collaborate with Warren when there are diffs of Randy explicitly saying he won't engage with BRD in this thread. I don't think I'll be able to convince the community of anything, at this point, because I can't compete with literally providing no evidence and being taken seriously for some absurd reason. This filing has successfully disabused me of the notion of Wikipedia as a serious part of the internet. Important, yes. Definitely self important. But not serious. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose 2-way, *Support 1-way imposed on WarrenMCK Soft support 1-way imposed on Warrenmck. I understand the desire for a 2-way I-ban but I can't convince myself it's the right solution with how this has played out. RK is being RK and that's nothing new. But Warren's first edit to a content-oriented space since their break started was to immediately re-engage with RK, and that just reeks of an inability/unwillingness to just avoid RK and edit elsewhere. It also makes their volunteering to a two-way IBAN confusing at best. This could have been a SNOW two-way IBAN on these editors if this dispute had started any way but Warren coming back right where they left off like a heat-seaking missile. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC) Support added due to continued bludgeoning, can't see them willingly dropping this matter. 11:58, October 6 2025 (UTC)

  It also makes their volunteering to a two-way IBAN confusing at best.

  This is my third request for an IBAN, and second formal one at ANI. I have asked Randy to voluntarily have an IBAN. The problem here is Randy just fait accompli'd something he'd disengaged from a while back, in a way that's extremely obvious if you spend any time on the pages in question. So the reason I asked for an IBAN is because of how we got to this place, not because of the template. The request for the IBAN is because randy decided to engage via the edit summaries of disputed content with aspersions while explicitly saying he wasn't going to engage in the discussion. If Randy isn't going to talk to me, I'd prefer it if he isn't oversighting my edits while doing so. I have literally no interest in continuing to interact with him on this site, just literally the primary reason I am here is Mars articles, which he's puppy guarding in places. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  For the record at time of writing, this thread has ~56 posts (not counting this one) and of those, you have posted 25 of them, or about 45% and RK has made 12. I think it's time for other voices to have a chance to contribute before this bloats to a size nobody will want to read. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Soft support 1-way imposed on Warrenmck. [...] RK is being RK and that's nothing new

  Geez, I know I'm new here (I've been lurking on ANI for a while, though), but I was seriously about to create an account to help edit some articles here and there. Now I'm definitely not going to, because--at least from the perspective of an outsider--trying to explain yourself with diffs is considered WP:BLUDGEON, but an editor that literally said not even counting any diffs I could provide but choose not to gets a free pass for reasons unknown to me (maybe they're well known? Maybe it's because they posted only a few replies, including an extremely sarcastic one when replying to the person who started this thread?).

  I'm sorry if this comes off as rude, but to me this quite literally can be read as "Warren is in the wrong because, after taking a break, they engaged with Randy instead of letting Randy do whatever they wanted, and so Warren must be banned for it".

  Best of luck to all of you. I still greatly respect Wikipedia, but I never want to be part of it.

  2804:D41:A7B2:4300:F3:2BA0:68B2:ED18 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  While I share your read of this situation entirely, I think making this your first edit is going to result in accusations of me socking, and may harm more than it helps. There appears to be a serious appetite to see me as exclusively engaging in bad faith, despite my attempts at disclosure. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support at least a 1 way stopping Warrenmck from interacting with Randy both editors clearly have major problems here but I'm convinced at least Warrenmck needs to be stopped from interacting with Randy since as demonstrated above, they simply cannot accept any possible fault in the way they've interacted with Randy nor even accept that they ultimately need consensus for their changes with or without Randy. It's extremely tiresome when an editor insists they're right but is unwilling to prove it and this seems to apply to both of them. But at least Randy was willing to let it go but Warrenmck came back after a long break & one of the first things they did was to again insist they're right while still lacking any consensus & refuses to back down from that. If you're so clearly right on the issues (whether accessibility or whatever) you should have no problem achieving consensus for that before you resume an edit war so there is zero reason to be recalcitrant on seeking it first when you know there is dispute. It makes even less sense if the problems have existed for months so a few more weeks while you seek consensus is not a big deal. To be clear, I'm not opposed to an iban to stop Randy from interacting with Warrenmck just not so certain it's needed.Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Just wanted to add that the obvious solution if one party preferred the map and the other preferred the text template was to keep them both. Each party then gets to work on their preferred variant to their hearts content without needing to come into conflict. Once each had developed their best variant, they could then try to convince the community whether to have one of them or both in articles. If as it turns out the community only wanted one specific one in all articles where they would be relevant, it's likely the unused variant would be deleted or perhaps kept only for attribution history or as a user sub page. The discussion shows for all the flaws in their engagement style, Randy did propose this option more or less. For whatever reason Warrenmck refuses but instead continued to insist they were right without having achieved consensus on this. When again, if they were indeed so clearly right it should have been trivial to follow Randy's suggestion and then let Randy spend their time on their preferred version only to have it rejected by the community because Warrenmck was right. Let me re-iterate, if you're so clearly right the way to "win" at ANI is not to come here & try to prove you would have been able to achieve consensus if only XYZ had happened. But instead come here & show you did achieve consensus but were ignored. (Or better, don't come to ANI because the other editor accepted the result once you did have consensus.) Without consensus both of you have failed at dispute resolution & also to re-iterate no single editor can stop consensus from forming. Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  That solution was not technically feasible. The navbox had been placed at the bottom of the page with other navboxes. To revert the code in the navbox to the image map, you’d suddenly have an interactive map of mars out of place in the navigation section of pages, between other navboxes. Mass reverting would involve a substantial number of pages and a substantial number of interstitial edits as it had been going on for months. Again, I always said I was willing to do the work to revert it to the previous state, just not for the stated reason of “it was there a long time”. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Sorry looking a bit more it looks like Randy did actually recently create a template with their preferred variant recently and add it to articles and this seems to have been what set Warrenmck off. Still this didn't have to concern Warrenmck since they didn't remove Warrenmck's version. Instead they seem to have tried to finally advance the dispute by ensuring both versions existed and so the community could judge whether they wanted one or both. Warrenmck could have used this chance to come back and work fixing whatever they felt was broken in their variant of the template while leaving Randy's version alone. Instead they came back just to revert Randy's version. Since Warrenmck was so sure Randy's version had clear problems, there was no reason for this. Consensus is surely obvious and simple. Let Randy finish their variant, Warrenmck can fix whatever they think needs to be fixed in their variant and as I said above, put them both to the community and achieve this simple consensus that Randy's version is unwanted Warrenmck feels should exist. But this isn't what happened. So not quite what I said above but still showing an unwillingness on the part of Warrenmck to leave Randy alone and let the community decide if they're right on the alleged problems with Randy's template/map. Randy OTOH for all their flaws did seem to be willing to just leave Warrenmck's version well alone. (Not surprising, I don't think Randy minds Warrenmck's version co-existing in articles, so it's more a matter of whether Randy's originalish version is still needed or wanted.) BTW the claim that Randy never gave a reason why they liked the map isn't true since they said this [3]. Again not defending Randy refusing to comment before reversion or to engage with Warrenmck or say this was sufficient explanation but they did at least say something. (I don't think they ever got back however, either they forgot or have up with other disputes.) Ultimately the more I look into this the more I see the typical frankly childish nyah nyah I'm right and you're wrong from both editors when a content dispute arises largely involving two editors. Rather than any real attempt to engage the wider community & achieve consensus and prove they're right which I'll re-iterate for the last time, should be trivial if you're really right. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Instead they seem to have tried to finally advance the dispute by ensuring both versions existed

  this exact proposal, with a duplicate of the template added, was discussed. This is mentioned in the filing. Randy knew it would be controversial, and did it en masse anyways. This is the definition of WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Randy is still fixating on the fact that I removed ~16 of the templates as if the number changed that he unilaterally added changed the appropriate response in BRD.

  Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change.

  emphasis added Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support 1-way IBAN (Warrenmck from Randy) - What I'm mostly seeing brings to mind this comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise. This is looking more like harassment from Warren, while Randy is attempting to act in good faith. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support two-way. The issue isn't simply one-sided. That's with me thinking both of these people are digging their heels in over simply wanting to be right. Valereee (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN of Randy Kryn from Warrenmck and their sockpuppet. They have demonstrated that they are disrupting the encyclopedia with their campaign against Randy. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose a two-way IBAN. I have not seen a solid case that Randy is harassing or counter-harassing Warren, but I have seen that Warren is harassing Randy. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support two-way - Having now spent a non-insignificant amount of time trying to follow the series of events, I'll say that, while Warren's behavior here has been sub-optimal to say the least, this is not a 1-sided issue & Randy's behavior has also been rather disappointing. They've repeatedly been dismissive of issues & have cast several aspersions in the process, both here & on the article Talk page. This definitely played a factor towards this spiral of non-collaboration between these two editors.
  I will also note that Warren seems to be collaborating fine with other editors on the same article talk page, so it's apparent that Warren can be a productive editor, but Randy & Warren can't edit together. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• What the hell is happening here? I normally wouldn't wade into this, but it sort of touches on apparent cleanup of Drbogdan's prolific creation of bad templates, bad editing, etc., which is something I've kept a bit of an eye on. As for the content, this looks like cleanup work of Warren in that regard. As far as I can see, Warren did everything right here, and only months later did Randy come back, make a copy of the template at a completely inappropriate title (referencing a specific WP editor's username), and then change every transclusion to that one re-add it back to every (?) article which originally had it. That is utterly unacceptable behavior and shouldn't be tolerated. Warren's frustrations seem kind of understandable given the apparent hounding of his work (has there been any explanation of how Randy came to find this, and then tried to sneak the old one back in months later?). I just don't understand the piling on of Warren here and apparent disregard of Randy's own bad acts -- not just the template thing, but all the rest, like insinuating Warren might have more sock accounts, etc. I don't have any concrete suggestions for what should be done here, but I don't think this is getting looked at in the right way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  "Change"? I was wondering if I was missing something again although was surprised since both sides seemed to be saying the map was re-added which Randy wanted and was fine with it co-existing with the template, but Warren did not. I had a quick check of WarrenMCK's reversions e.g. [4] [5] [6] and all of them seem to be the same thing just reverting the addition of the map rather than reverting to a version with the other template. It's possible some of these pages did not have the template but I'm not seeing evidence Randy is responsible for that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Sorry, you're right of course. I misspoke or mis-saw the diff or something; I've edited my comment to reflect that. However, I still think that doesn't really change much about what's going on. This may in fact be spillover from Randy's minority dissent from sanctions being levied against Drbogdan at ANI, and which Warren was the one who actually opened the thread (see comment here). Something about all of this really stinks, and to place all the blame at Warren's feet is really not a good look here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t think it matters. You instantly saw what I saw, because you’re familiar with Drbogdan and why his editing is so intensely important to this discussion. It’s apparent that most people here can’t even be assed to notice the constant harassments, hounding, aspersions, and then the tidal wave turns against an editor who has spent months trying to engage Randy to get him to discuss this.

  the underlying issue, one which will certainly sound like an aspersion, is Randy doesn’t want Drbogdan’s work being removed. That’s it. That’s what this is about. That’s what this has been about for over a year, and that’s why Randy went on a template spree with an inappropriately named template right when Drbogdan got CBANned from commons. The only editor trying to hammer a content dispute here is Randy, but because I was inactive off the site apparently WP:FAITACCOMPLI, abusive edit summaries, and constant aspersions are not only acceptable, but they’re so much more acceptable than this filing that there’s apparently no need for anyone to address any concern for which a diff was provided here.

  Randy even told on himself here:

  Mud does stick when repeated enough (a proven psychological ploy)

  I’m not flouncing here, but I’ll be surprised if I ever substantially edit again on Mars topics. Randy has won, by virtue of ANI being too goddamn lazy for anything even slightly complex. Again. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  That’s literally exactly what this is. There’s a subpage on my old account with the Martian articles Drbogdan had ruined with his editing, and this conflict with Randy stems from that. He’s still here in this very filing defending Drbogdan’s work as very good when it literally got him banned from the project. Drbogdan was just indeffed from commons and appears from the timing to have made this as a memorial to Drbogdan, considering after about six months he suddenly decided to do this at the exact same time as the ANU filing. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• INDEF Warren, caveat, potentially involved as closer of first ANI. You don't get to say you've flounced because of another editor's conduct when you came back to pick up the exact same debate. Randy can be idiosyncratic, but they don't appear to be the primary problem here. If you're unable to drop the stick, Warren, it may need to be dropped for you. A one-way IBAN would be fine, but I don't think it will be sufficient. Star Mississippi 01:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  At this point I sincerely and profoundly do not care if this is the outcome. My respect for this process (though again, I’ll respect the result) has dropped to zero. Repeatedly, Randy’s behavior escapes all scrutiny because of his ability to switch tone when facing scrutiny. I didn’t file this ANI in response to edits, I filed it in response to behaviours and gave him a half dozen opportunities to strike his aspersions and that if he continued I’d bring him here. He continued, I brought him here. The community today appears to be concluding that there is no permissible context in which a returning editor can file an ANI regardless of what behavior elcificted it, because in tens of thousands of words almost nothing has been said about the aspersions-per-post machine gun spread of Randy losing his goddamn mind at me. The level of bureaucratic rot it takes to get to this place is surprisingly intense.

  Indef me all you want, I’ll save an appeal for when Randy finally pisses off the community in a way that can’t be ignored. Which, frankly, I would have thought openly and explicitly not reading a discussion thread until editors acquiesce to your version was. Maybe my standards have been too high. It’s hardly like there’s much point in editing Mars articles if Randy owns them. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  Support over a 1-way IBAN.

  With all due respect, if this community can’t be assed to figure out who is harassing who in a year-long spat where one party is has been casting aspersions and straight up lying in discussion, and the other is actually bringing diffs and can point to months of specific attempts to engage civilly, requests for an IBAN, as well as repeated warnings to stop lobbing accusations in edit summaries and talk pages and six edits to a user talk page after being asked not to (harassment by any definition), then this community has lost the plot. Entirely. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• One-way IBAN for Warren. The key observation, made by GabberFlasted above, is Warren's first edit to a content-oriented space since their break started was to immediately re-engage with RK, and that just reeks of an inability/unwillingness to just avoid RK and edit elsewhere. EEng 04:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I’m sincerely curious why me removing this is seen as inappropriate but not the fait accompli addition of templates which had already been discussed and Randy knew was controversial? I’m not aware of any rule that editors are not allowed to return from breaks to undo specific edits which were already contentious. I am aware of rules against the above diffs, and fait accompli. I was already highly active on Commons when Randy made the changes. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:53, 24 September 225 (UTC)

Oppose two way; support one way Iban for Warrenmck per EEng and PositivelyUncertain. Per Star Mississippi I support a block for Warrenmck on account of their walls-of-text trolling, bludgeoning this very thread and general inability to drop the stick. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Support one way for Warrenmc, oppose two way per PositivelyUncertain above. Springee (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Having read this discussion, as well as old discussions here and at Commons, I think Warrenmck identified the root problem correctly: the underlying issue, one which will certainly sound like an aspersion, is Randy doesn’t want Drbogdan’s work being removed. That’s it. That’s what this is about. (And as of a few days ago at Commons, Drbogdan was still writing in exactly the way called out as quite frustrating in the ANI close.) This looks like the latest stage in a saga of bad blood. I don't think that Warrenmck should be indeffed from the project because of it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  So this is a hyper escalated content dispute? 37.186.32.157 (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think it started as a content dispute (about superficial material in science articles and such), and then it became a conduct issue, and now participants in that dispute are blowing up again. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support 2-way I think Warren has done a pretty good job in this thread of showing that he can't edit with Randy; what's more unfortunate is the way he's obscured the issues. Warren has in fact edited outside of the Randy topic areas [7][8][9]- they came back under an account to deal with copyright violations uploaded by Drbogdan to Commons[10]. During the Commons AN/U (trans. "AN/I") that resulted in Drbogdan's ban,[11] Drbogdan tried to canvass Randy to his side;[12] Randy didn't respond, but within about a week of the ping, started restoring Drbogdan's old material on enWiki,[13] material he knew Warren objected to. To be clear, I don't have enough direct evidence to state without a shadow of a doubt that Randy is proxying poor-quality content on the behalf of a cbanned user, but that kind of behaviour did come up in the last AN/I thread about Drbogdan[14]. I don't think this will get better if there's a one-way iban. Also, posts like this[15] show that the issue is pretty two-sided. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  To clarify, since Randy asked me to strike my good faith aspersion[16] - I presented diffs that showed how you created a template named after a banned editor, very soon after they pinged you for help. Maybe my interpretation of that isn't correct, but ah well; the universe will someday get over its complete lack of astonishment that I'm sometimes wrong.

  What I don't need to be wrong about, however, is that after I made my above comment Randy went back to the Mars Features template talkpage to ping Warren[17] to say we can still talk until that "gotcha" ANI thing ends. Which... okay, I'm very bad with people. And social interactions. And even I'm looking at that post going "this guy has completely backed off the discussion on the talkpage, repeatedly asked for a two-way iban, why on earth can't you just leave it?" Again, oppose one way, re-affirm support for two-way because both parties seem incapable of not baiting the other. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  It’s almost like there was something to my hounding and harassment claims! I think you briefly saw what I’ve been repeatedly dealing with in real time. I even asked him if he had a personal issue with me back in April. I genuinely don’t know where I’ve goaded Randy here unless you’re talking about the revert, which several other editors here had a read of the edit being unacceptable as well. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Look at your edit summaries here: [18][19], then look me in my metaphorical eyes and tell me you think that was helpful. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  These look like accurate summaries to me? Bogdan posting would have worked, or "removing senior moments" 174.171.77.45 (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  Those edit summaries were exclusively made in response to edits Randy was making on my talk page after being asked to stop commenting on my talk page. Your edit 20 above is Randy restoring content I removed from my talk page a few edits prior (diff). I was not trying to be helpful to Randy, I was trying to get him to leave me alone after about a year of continuous harassment on this front. Remember this all came after repeated requests for an IBAN, official or not. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Support 2-way As far as I can tell, the problem here is going both ways. And per GLL, if one party may be proxying (directly or indirectly) for a cbanned user, ibanning only the other party is Not On. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support 2-way IBAN - Having read through a large chunk of this discussion and associated diffs, it seems to me that both these editors have made poor choices in the lead-up to all this. I'm personally not thrilled that Warren has come back after flouncing to continue the same dispute, but the diffs that GLL presented above, as well as some of Randy's own comments here, seem to show that he's played a part in dialing up the temperature. Previously, I was going to vote for a one-way IBAN, but now I think a two-way would be the right outcome to move on from this mess. Sigma440 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: I've brought this back from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1202, since I think there is a consensus to do something. Could an admin possibly officially close this? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• 2-way IBAN and delete the stupid map. At Template talk:Features and artificial objects on Mars Randy should have seen the pushback to this map from Valereee, and a WMF employee flagging up that the template is broken on phones/small screens (still the case in the recreation). Screen reader/keyboard navigation users might wonder why the labels for this map are disconnected from the map and its description, why every label needs 2 seperate links (text and uselessly small image), or why they hear "Mars Polar Lander Down Arrow". If they are blind they will wonder which labels are orange for inactive, if they are partially sighted they will wonder why the labels are in alphabetical order instead of positional order. Edit warring back such badly made content to defend a user CBAN'd for similarly badly made content, when opposition had already been demonstrated by an uninvolved third party in April, is beyond the pale. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, just get the cleanup done already. Randy may be proxy-editing for Drbogdan according to what Im seeing here 37.186.32.157 (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Mouse. David10244 (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Support deletion of the map: I agree that a malformed and known broken map should not be used, or in this case, revived after it has been deleted with consensus. I will note that Randy's restoration of the template against the consensus should not have been unilaterally imposed, but that does not excuse the actions of Warren throughout this matter. The best course of action I see is to nuke the map to put this matter to rest, since it is clear that neither side is willing to compromise with the other, while ignoring the consensus for its removal and deletion. I did not want ANI to try to impose such measures, but I think, at the rate this is going, it is necessary to prevent further disruption. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  that does not excuse the actions of Warren throughout this matter with all due respect: what action are you referring to? There appears to have been this game of telephone throughout this ANI where editors assume I’ve got some fundamental bad-faith thing going on, starting with an admin calling the revert that is increasingly being viewed here as justified, as “bait”. When Randy objected I stopped the edits to the template, and I believe I’ve been told here that not undoing months worth of edits numbering in the hundreds on the basis of “I like it” is bad faith (I even offered to do it anyways if he’d explain his stance!). When it became clear it wouldn’t be a productive place to edit, I left it alone for five months. I was active on the project before reverting Randy’s template addition under an account, and I was careful here to disclose my own flounce in the ANI. Basically everything I was told to do I had already done. Even WP:BLUDGEON, an essay and not a policy, highlights that it isn’t necessarily applicable in complex cases, and in tens of thousands of words Randy hasn’t been asked to account for several bright line harassment issues, but I’ve been repeatedly accused of trying to abuse ANI to win a content dispute, and most recently someone voted accusing me of WP:OWN when there’s repeated comments in here from people overlooking the discussion commenting that I’m editing well with non-Randy editors, even those who I don’t share a perspective with. I simply do not believe half the participants at this ANI are reading more than a smattering of random links and some summaries shared by those who read a smattering of links, which has lead to multiple “what the hell is going on here?” comments from people who did actually take the time.

  Seriously, this game of telephone has turned into me as a bad faith actor who demands sanctions despite the understanding of the ANI broadly swinging to agreeing that I was responding to an inappropriate edit, and I stopped the second there was pushback from Randy that looked like it’d be an edit war, something Randy lied to the community that he took the lead on here in this ANI. The assumption of bad faith on my part, does not track with what has actually happened. At all. It is a problem that RK is being RK and that's nothing new is being elevated to policy. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have not seen problematic behavior from Randy from the evidence adduced. A 2 way iBan is usually how productive conversations are forced to a halt. Kvinnen (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support 1-way IBAN or indef for Warrenmck. The walls of text and bludgeoning just on this page are way past disruptive. Oppose a 2-way as I suspect this would only lead to more ownership and gaming behavior from Warren. —Rutebega (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is the first accusation of me engaging in WP:OWN behaviour in this entire ANI and comes out of the ether. I proposed a limited TBAN for myself, even. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Did you look at where this started? Moreover, as with Warren here, where did this come from? Maybe some diffs? 2A04:7F80:62:D1F5:BD87:306C:B9D9:1DC8 (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I think this is making it worse. For any admins, I’m comfortable with WP:CHECKUSER and hatting/redacting here. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly support 2-way As per GLL, above. Also, a 2-way IBAN is how NONproductive conversations, such as these, are forced to a halt.

  ☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 15:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I have posted a Request for Closure for an admin to determine whether there is consensus for a 1-way IBAN or a 2-way IBAN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support 2-way i-ban, but also (per 35.139.154.158 and Trailblazer101) the deletion of the map. ----JBL (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Indef Warrenmck, don't see anything immediately problematic about Randy. Warrenmck tried to override a template with a completely new template and refused to participate in BRD. The navbox template has nothing in common with the map, so Warrenmck should have created a new template and brought the old one to TfD with the claim that it is mobile-unfriendly. Completely replacing the template and refusing to engage in BRD is tantamount to deletion without proper discussion at TfD. Randy recreating the template is not an issue for me. He did it transparently with a notice on the talk page and even wrote that agreed above that the name originally used would be transferred to Warrenmck's very good footer navbox – I am baffled that some editors here are calling this "sneaky" or in any way retaliatory. Two things can coexist. Calling it attempt at a fait accompli, bringing this to AN/I, linking a diff of Randy requesting to use BRD and claiming it's a refusal to discuss, etc. are insufferable behavior. The only issue I can see for Randy is the possible proxy editing for a cbanned editor, which would be an issue if true but I'm not seeing great evidence for it. Yes, he recreated Drbogdan's template, but it wasn't deleted via deletion discussion and he only used the editor's username as a way to give authorship credit and to allow Warrenmck to usurp the old template name. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm honestly not impressed with how the BRD process was not followed in this: within about 5 minutes of Warren responding on the Mars template, Randy shows up to his talkpage telling him to Stop reverting the Mars map, I'll just have to revert them all [20]. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's the most friendly wording, but it's a relatively normal response to an editor making thirty reverts with pointy and tententious edit sumamries. I see this dispute as starting from the beginning in April, not beginning with the September spat, so it is Warrenmck who needs to seek consensus for the map's removal. Randy was thus correct to tell Warrenmck to stop and seek consensus. I don't see anything amiss with the timeline, even the five-minute gap: if Randy got thirty reversion notifications, it's very likely that he was unaware Warrenmck had responded and was rightfully frustrated at getting spammed with "your edit was reverted". The most logical thing to do when getting hit by thirty notifications from the same person is a talk page message. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's probably true, but even if you get thirty notifications, you aren't required to revert... these two clearly don't get along, and Randy keeps pinging Warren on the template talkpage.[21], seemingly just to talk to him. But re, your other point: it did seem to start in April.. then died down until September, when Drbogdan asked Randy to specifically get involved in a conflict on a different project on his behalf. I'm sorry, I just don't find it plausible that content which had been removed several months ago, which Randy knew Warren objected to, suddenly needed to be added back to several dozen articles the moment Warren got Drbogdan (who clearly views Randy as a friend) banned on a different project. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• As an aside on faits accompli, I'm finding it quite comical that Warrenmck is repeatedly describing Randy's edits as such here (Ctrl+F to see). While Randy did insert his preferred (original) version of the template into many articles, he does not appear to have done so to exhaust editors' ability to contest the change: he did so ostensibly to restore the original pre-dispute state of the articles. Warrenmck, on the other hand, has in this very discussion stated that the BRD-compliant process of letting both templates coexist is not technically feasible because it would involve a substantial number of pages and a substantial number of interstitial edits, these edits of course being Warrenmck's own. That is a fait accompli, and one explicitly framed as such, where an editor is refusing to engage in a community process solely because they have already made so many noncompliant edits that they cannot be bothered to undo. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  I’m specifically talking about the fact that the point at which Randy came into the process was months into the editing process. I actually think it would be a fait accompli from me to have done this all in short succession and claimed the technical debt was a roadblock, but you’re talking about five months of edits that involved other editors and notifying the Mars Task Force to work on collaboratively, which apparently is on Randy’s watchlist? I repeatedly, over and over, said I was willing to do it, and left another similar Drbogdan template alone because I was now aware Randy objected, while taking it to the talk page, but that considering there were specific technical and policy based arguments against its inclusion another editor’s preference isnt alone a sufficient argument to ignore the technical issues. Again, I solicited third parties that liked ther imagemaps to moderate between us.

  The template code has changed to a navbox and moved to the bottom of the pages. Reverting the template code would have placed it with the navboxes, breaking the navbox section. Replacing the template tag first would have resulted in the navigational box sitting in the middle of the page.Both needed to be done simultaneously, meaning a pretty big project not to leave pages on a malformed state. Again, I was willing to do that, I just wanted Randy to discuss what he wanted. Randy wouldn’t discuss until he got his way, and in the meantime edit warred the template on articles in a way that stuck nabboxes dead-centre of articles.

  What about this was unreasonable from me? Serious question. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  On April 10, 2025, your second revert's edit summary read This will be my last revert. There is an ongoing discussion and the version you are reverting to breaks the pages its on and the accessibility of those pages. BRD applies here, but BRD should be breaking pages. This is a plain refusal to cooperate with standard editing practice, justified by the fact that reverting now "breaks pages" due to your own edits to those pages. You repeated this statement on April 18, 2025 with I repeatedly tried warning him that his reverts were breaking the pages: there’s now a traditional navbox in the middle of the page. That’s the specific reason I held things in a status quo, rather than allowing Randy’s revert to stand per standard WP:BRD. Valereee made a specific request for you to just create another page for the template and leave this one alone for now which you again refused based on this fait accompli: because at this point that template is live on a bunch of pages, and it’s not a case of just reverting them. Randy then made a request to take a break and cool off then have both templates coexist, writing Yes, of course if renaming the navimage is easier, moving it to a new name, and leaving the navbox at this title, that sounds like the best option for not causing more work. ... Adding it back on them another day or week in order to calm this discussion down would be nice, and if it needs some kind of code fix that can be figured out which you called stonewalling and harassment.

  On April 19, 2025, you finally conceded to Randy that you have no objections to you recreating the image nav box at its own page and never have. Yet now that he has done so, you opened an AN/I thread against him with the opening statement Randy re-created a template that there was a dispute over and re-added it to a lot of pages where it had previously been. This is disruptive, tendentious editing and I agree with everyone accusing you of baiting Randy. You repeatedly used your own edits as a fait accompli, finally conceded to allow the templates to coexist, and when Randy did so you accuse him with hundreds of words of comments calling his actions the fait accompli. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Support 1-way IBAN against Warrenmck no IBAN against Randy who does not appear here to have shown enough of anything like harassment to warrant that. A 1-way IBAN solves this. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• This may come off as a bit reductive in describing the unbelievably tangled production of mutual backbiting that these two editors have created; one of them may very well be more culpable for the disruption, but I sure as hell can't tell which after round 20. But what I have to say next is not meant to directly influence the ultimate outcome here but to try to flag down some recognition from Randy and Warren as to the consequences of their behaviour. Because if I am personally honest, while I have seen many worthy contributions from both of them, if I showed up at ANI some day and saw a community discussion had resolved to CBAN/Indef either or both of them, my first thought would be "Yeah, that's not a surprise, and it may be for the best." We have seen both of them show a marked propensity for getting into tendentious contests of will with multiple others and chewing through community time and patience. Together, they create a time sink like a supermassive gravity well of tendentiousness and willfuly unacknowledged sunk costs. Whatever the outcome of this discussion--and I suspect it will be no consensus--they both need to do some re-assessing, as I think tolerance and any good will they might have previously accrued with the community is at low ebb. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t intend on bother with ANI again for anything beyond mere vandalism or socking. I think I’ve made my stance clear that I’m finding the process deeply unserious at this point. You can map me as wasting community time with ANI filings all you want but I should point out that they almost exclusively closed with sanctions brought against the person they’re raised against, and all of those started with threats of boomerangs. I wouldn’t be surprised at all by the reaction you say you’d have to a CBAN, and I believe many others would react the same way. If that’s the community’s wish, so be it. I’ve said I’ll respect the letter and spirit of any findings, just not the process that got us there, which at this point has absolved itself of respectability.

  In every ANI against an editor who sits on the list of most contributions to the project there’s been a discussion about my behaviour for merely raising those ANIs. I’ve lost track of the boomerang threats for daring to take an established editor to ANI. Other than my flounce, those have gone well after this arc of seeing me as a bad faith villain. It always takes someone with more social capital to come in, rephrase exactly the content that was in the filing, and then people act like they’re seeing the whole picture for the first time. I’m indifferent to the community’s opinion on verbosity specifically when that verbosity is expected to step aside to allow random baseless accusations to take root, as they have here, which permanently poison any consideration that I can be acting in good faith. There’s a prime example of that here where there’s this paradoxical attitude that my revert was unacceptable edit warring but editors also agree that the thing I reverted was an inappropriate attempt to edit low quality content back onto the project for a CBANned editor. That initial impression has become unshakable.

  Here, there’s a slew of behavioral accusations thrown my way in the discussion. Many have been brought up for the first time in sanctioning votes, and none of which have presented evidence. Others have simply fabricated claims whole cloth and presented those as serious, but of course responding to those and pointing out that a) nobody has ever made that claim and b) no evidence for that claim has been presented, I’m unacceptably bludgeoning. Here, early in the process, we have an admin declaring they won’t weigh in on a content dispute, then personally determining the content was good to rule an edit “bait” while pretending that’s not weighing in on a content dispute. I again ask why, as a filing editor with zero sanctions, an admin felt it appropriate to colour the discussion from the start by calling a perfectly normal editing action “bait”. In nineteen years on this project my only block ever was a 24 hour block for reverting an admin, which was overturned as an inappropriate block. Randy’s track record is not in the same situation.

  If dragging this community kicking and screaming into confronting the fact names that are known to them are low quality editors who get away with abusing other editors and the process is so serious a crime that after three successful cases, starting to look like four, and one flounce, for which I take full ownership of and even lead this ANI with (but sure, I’m not acting accountable here), then why, pray tell, do you think I would take this community, this process, and very specifically this page here as something actually serious or important? Because all I’ve seen here is a complete lack of stomach for dealing with friends of admins. Not once has anyone bothered to mention that repeated talk page comments after being told to stop is bright line harassment. As is accusing an editor of vandalism in a content dispute, for which Randy was warned and doubled down in front of an admin.

  If you want threats of sanctions to weigh heavily on an editor, then maybe ensure they don’t look arbitrary and retributive. At this point it’s clear that is not just what it looks like, but actually is, because basically every argument that I behaved inappropriately excepting my behaviour here in this ANI (which I’ve been open about being sub-optimal in my boundless frustration at the willingness by all to assume Randy’s a good faith editor and I’m abusing the process for nebulous reasons, and for which I accept there may be other sanctions) has multiple other people here saying that from the outside it sure does look like I was trying to actually do everything I was meant to do. Clearly there should be some benefit of the doubt here, but I challenge you to read over this ANI again from the start and tell me with a straight face that it hasn’t assumed bad faith from me from the get-go. If social capital is going to dominate the jurisprudence of ANI then perhaps that should be formalized in policy so that long-term editors with a slew of documented behavioural issues don’t have to face scrutiny, and wikipedians wont be placed in the uncomfortable position of having to pretend they actually respect their own process so often. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  I would posit, for future consideration and avoiding walls of text, perhaps don't let the subjects of filings state that evidence is too burdensome to provide while lobbing more accusations. Maybe don't have admins call perfectly normal revert of edit warring behaviour "bait" while admitting that they're not going to read the underlying evidence on the appropriateness of the edits they're calling bait.

  I think I've said enough on this topic. I won't flounce, but I also don't know why anyone would expect perfect behaviour from an editor who is treated as engaging in bad faith from the opening moment of their filing because of who the subject of their filing is (RK is being RK and that's nothing new). Again, for a fourth time, despite a track record of raising complex cases successfully. Complex cases require substantial reading, either from individuals sifting through the evidence to determine the facts on their own, or within the ANI itself laying out the evidence. That's laid out directly in WP:BLUDGEON. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  Warren, I can appreciate your desire to defend yourself, but after someone has just explained that they find the record completely inscrutable because of all of the muddy water, why would you think that another ginormous wall of text filled with accusations would be the appropriate response? I'm trying to tell you what the optics look like here and your response is to essentially pantomime that very description of hyperfixated obstinancy.

  Look, do you really want to know why you're never going to win in these pitched battles with Randy? Because he knows how to quit when he's ahead. Does he push matters against obvious consensus until well after it is disruptive sometimes? Yup, that's my experience. But he also has an uncanny ability for realizing when he's just about pushed things into territory that is going to get him into serious trouble, and he's willing to let things go before crossing that line. I know you are no fan, but one thing you can't deny him: he knows how to read the room.

  I think there's some blame to go around here on the underlying issues, but in terms of why you are losing the rhetorical fight, it's not because Randy is a "friend of admins"; between the two of you, I'm sure he's been party to many more ANI discussions. Rather you are falling behind here because he has basically gotten you to rope-a-dope yourself. He hasn't posted here in 11 days and you are still tilting at the shadow of his windmills. And pointing the finger at everyone but yourself: Randy, his supposed possee of admirers, and all of the rest of us idiots who just can't see the shinning virtue of your position. Well maybe it's that the luster is obscured a little by the 700,000kb of your latter-day Phillipics? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  Does he push matters against obvious consensus until well after it is disruptive sometimes? Yup, that's my experience. But he also has an uncanny ability for realizing when he's just about pushed things into territory that is going to get him into serious trouble

  I deeply disagree with this read. He doesn't back away with editors, he backs away with admins. This is the exclusive reason I asked him to bring me to ANI when he started accusing me left, right, and centre (which he bullshit the community here about being about his reverts); because I know Randy isn't willing to try to cash the checks his mouth likes to write. There is very clearly a disconnect in the frustration of editors who have to deal with Randy on these topics and the admin perception of that behaviour.

  in terms of why you are losing the rhetorical fight

  I believe I have lost the rhetorical fight. I do not think there is anything I could have done, at any point, other than fully bow out of editing the articles that Randy wants to edit, that wouldn't have played out the same way. I have believed this since Randy was allowed to explicitly state he wouldn't read a comment until edits her want were made. I have believed this since @Valereee let him double down on the vandalism accusations after being told it was unacceptable, and I have believed it's set in stone since Randy declared evidence beneath other editors without pushback.

  To put it more succinctly: I do not actually care about any outcome for me as long as Randy's behaviour is actually taken seriously for once. Which it appears it will not be. I am not out to avoid sanctions for myself, because if my behaviour warrants sanctions it warrants sanctions. I believe that sincerely. Just don't tell me it's being handled fairly when "Randy is being Randy" is taken as a reason for a different tier of behavioural expectations. Sanction us both, fully, as appropriate. Or just me as appropriate if my read here has been wrong. I have asked several times here what I was meant to do differently in the discussion around the template (I'm very aware of what people would like me to change in my ANI engagement, and have said that I will address that by simply not bothering with anything other than cut-and-dry vandalism or similar at ANI). As far as I've been told, everything I was meant to do are steps I took. I am not trying to say "I did nothing wrong", I am sincerely asking for actionable feedback (beyond the fair actionable feedback I'm responding to here, which I broadly agree with but misunderstands how much I am concerned about self-preservation in this or any ANI).

  And pointing the finger at everyone but yourself: Randy, his supposed possee of admirers

  With all due respect, this isn't in my head. Even you, here, say Does he push matters against obvious consensus until well after it is disruptive sometimes? Yup, that's my experience. and others go RK is being RK. You are seeing this from the perspective of someone who interacts with Randy in bursts, not someone who has had him bad-faith stonewall entire topics for months and chase you around the project harassing your edits. Enormously crappy behaviour is being passed from scrutiny on the basis of name recognition. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm obviously not going to take admin action since I !voted above, but this is a final warning. @Wikibreaksock you're being absolutely disruptive after being advised multiple times that you're bludgeoning the discussion. Please stop unless a specific question is asked of you or you will be blocked from participation Star Mississippi 13:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  My (thankfully limited) experience with being dragged to drama processes is that the more shit I wrote, the less of it anybody would bother to read, even when they were responding with what they claimed to be a rebuttal. The impulse when people fail to understand is to write more, so that one can be better heard, but generally the opposite is true.

  What I did was just write posts with real short words (of one sound tops) and then folks would read them. jp×g🗯️ 06:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Ban of Warrenmck and Wikibreaksock

I think that Warrenmck and his sock Wikibreaksock have demonstrated that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia, and are bludgeoning the discussion with walls of text. They are digging in a hole and the dirt is piling up. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Supoort community ban as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. jp×g🗯️ 08:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• oppose because this may be too harsh, though maybe a short wkibreak may be in order to cool them down and engage in calmer discussion (72 hours perhaps?). Though in that time Randy probably should also refrain from discussing for the duration of the block 2A04:7F80:62:D1F5:79DA:F105:F122:C685 (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support Warrenmck/Wikibreaksock's continued, persistent bludgeoning of the discussion above tells me that they have learned nothing, wikibreak or not. Their battleground approach completely flies in the face of collegiate, constructive editing and co-operation. If we allow them the opportunity to continue, that's on us: they have shown an inability to walk away, so the community must take that responsibility for them. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I always feel really bad seeing people support a ban based on "the discussion above"; I think this is one of things that makes ANI a swamp. Surely there is more to these two grown men's existence on Wikipedia than a single noticeboard crashout? In real life, if somebody accuses someone else of a crime, we don't haul them both to represent themselves in a courtroom where any random person can yell at them for a week, and then shoot whichever of them gets mad. jp×g🗯️ 11:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I might agree with that principle, but it can't be set in stone. In the context of your hypothetical courtroom, it was Warrenmc/Wikibreaksock who dragged Randy Kryn to the courthouse, and then almost immediately launched personal attacks (for which they were warned by Voorts, above) on their target. While one might allow the—to continue your metaphor—the "defendant" the leeway to respond to everyone (and perhaps not call it bludgeoning, even), Wmc/WBS is the "plaintiff"—a plaintiff who's made over 50 edits to the thread as opposed to Randy Kryn's ~12. Both figures, in light of their roles here, are pretty good indicators of their respective approaches to conflict. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  To be fair, of course Warren has made more edits to this thread. Most here have generally targeted their conduct in specific, including casual aspersions towards them, without engaging with the substance of the original case, nor properly acknowledging Randy's actions, leaving Randy little reason to comment.

  PS. I don't blame editors for not reading everything here, as they are volunteers who aren't obligated to do so & it's ballooned into walls of text, but if they won't engage with the incident in question, I don't think their participation is helpful. In this case, it has sidetracked this incident into a pile-on which serves no one. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, haven't looked at this thread in a while and surprised it has continued so long, which is one of the reasons for my oppose. Way too long a time to give someone the chance to keep circling back to points-of-view that they seem stuck on but, assuming good faith, they believe to be true (that's what's important here, the assumption of good faith, because it's the law in these parts of Wikipedia City). Someone this carefree about muddying the name of a fellow Wikipedian probably sees a WikiBoogeyman, and is strongly reacting to what they imagine I've been doing (and thanks to those above who followed down the white rabbit hole a bit to find out for themselves). That should not be a reason to indef, but to try to talk to a fellow editor reasonably and get them back on track to edit both responsibly and productively, and I would suggest that they keep well away from ANI and not do this to anyone else. If there are specific questions please ping me, as I've made a point of not reading this thread for the last week or more except for a quick skim. I wish this kind of ordeal upon no other Wikipedia editor, including, importantly, Warren. So maybe let's close this and all move on to the next adventure. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• Not yet. While I was and am in support of an INDEF as I noted above and Warren's conduct has not improved, they did heed my final warning yesterday. I don't think we need a C-BAN here. If the I-Ban is implemented, it should be sufficient potentially coupled with a page block from the map to prevent further issues. Star Mississippi 12:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. We have an editor here who is stuck in a discussion loop due to lack of cognitive closure, because they are unwilling, on this occasion at least, to accept an ambiguous outcome of the sort we all must live with on this project from time to time. Yes, they have ill-advisedly ignored the guidance of the community here and slowly begun to test our patience as a result, but considering all relevant context and their broader conduct as an editor and community member, I do not see anything close to the level of need for action that would be required for a CBAN. What limited disruption there is, is isolated in this matter and mostly this thead, and is not altogether unexpected in the circumstances. Mind you, I'm not super impressed with Warren's belief that he can self-immolate his standing on the project, casting light on the need to hold Randy accountable in the process. This idea that he could somehow sacrifice himself to achieve that end is frankly a rather silly idea that has led to a rhetorical strategy that I would say has started to verge on what I would call antics--though let me hasten to add that I don't doubt for a second that Warren sincerely views that conduct through the lens of standing on principle.
  But while Warren has adopted an approach to argumentation in this case that is ineffectual and even counter-productive, and which has clearly pushed into generating bad will at this point, even from editors who previously would have been supportive, none of the issue are of the scale or sort necessitating his removal from the project, or really even close. As JPxG already noted above, this is closer to one lamentable episode brought about by frustration and (hopefully temporary) lack of perspective. There might be a little bit of a developing pattern of a refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK, which would surely be relevant if they end up back in behavioural fora quickly and under similar circumstances. But beyond that I don't see a need for action here, and certainly not action as severe as a full CBAN. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Warrenmck has raised legitimate issues in a poor and self-destructive way. The way to handle that is to temporarily ban him from ANI or projectspace and tell him that after the ban expires and if he has new thoughts for ANI, he's welcome to write precisely one concise paragraph if he wants to raise an issue, and then to leave the back-and-forth to others. A CBAN would be overkill. SnowFire (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose primarily per SnowRise. Warren is a constructive, net positive editor when not interacting with Randy. An IBAN will be sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unless there is evidence outside of the current dispute, Warren's behavior here does not amount to a net negative to Wikipedia. If this proposal is based solely on the discussion above, then I firmly reject the characterization & believe this proposal entirely unhelpful in diffusing the ongoing issues. I acknowledge their issues of bludgeoning & long walls of text & I hope they'll improve on that behavior in the future, but as it stands, this proposal is disproportionate & unneeded. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• Suport - time limited, sitewide ban of significant, although not indefinite, duration per WP:BANLENGTH and SnowFire to prevent further disruption and to assist with the self referenced Wikibreak. 216.126.35.228 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  • (To be clear, A) I opposed a ban above, and B) This is a proposal for a community ban, which usually have indefinite durations.) SnowFire (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

    @SnowFire: Yes, you said The way to handle that is to temporarily ban him from ANI or projectspace. WP:BANLENGTH allows for temporary bans too, just not those that are too short. 216.126.35.228 (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose contingent on IBAN passing. 15:09 I think this all boils down to how two editors have been interacting. An IBAN should be plenty to get people back to editing constructively. I don't believe a ban will prevent disruption any more than an IBAN will. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Sira Aspera

Sira Aspera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to delete sourced content on pages of:

• Emine Hatun
• Gülçiçek Hatun
• Gülbahar Hatun (mother of Bayezid II)

and previously many others, with no given explanation on why are they doing this, this has been going long enough. 62.4.42.205 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

no given explanation on why are they doing this... I mean, nobody's tried talking with her yet. No discussion, no warnings, nothing. Woodroar (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

False.

• [22] is a warning following this removal, no reply
• [23] is a warning about not using edit summaries when manual reverting, no reply
• [24] is a warning for removals in these edits, no reply
• [25] is a warning for removals in this edit, no reply
• [26] and [27] are warnings for removals at Roxelana [28][29], no reply
• [30] is a request to explain this revert, no reply
• [31] is a request to explain this revert, no reply
• [32] is a request to explain this BLAR, they did reply [33]
• [34] is a request to explain this removal, no reply
• [35] is a warning for removals in this edit, no reply. They have also recently tried to reinstate this removal on the 27th here, again with no explanation and with the edit marked as minor.
• [36] is a warning for "removing pages from LGBTQ categories without (plausible) explanation", no reply

This is only focused on content removals, there are a litany of warnings for other behaviors like edit warring and unsourced contributions. Replies are very rare, most warnings are silently reverted. A review of their recent contribution history shows more unexplained removals, which are often marked as minor, and edit summaries are rarely used. This pattern of behavior is disruptive. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for those diffs. I agree that the removals are disruptive. I'd support a final warning from an admin or a mainspace block, if one is proposed. Woodroar (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Im sorry but proof has been given and to me it looks like they arent planning to engage in a discussion so i do hope admins take appropriate action against the reported user. 62.4.42.205 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Sira Aspera is ignoring this discussion and is instead continuing to edit [37][38][39][40]. Given their issues with communication as illustrated above, requesting an admin pblock them from articlespace to force them to discuss the issues raised here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

And @Sira Aspera's pattern of continuing to edit instead of addressing raised concerns continues: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]

Example 4A of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS is "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits". This is unambiguously the case here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

They were invited to participate again on the third [49], and again ignored the request and made an edit elsewhere [50]. This is a very simple case at this point. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Just so you know, this user engaged in blatant vandalism yesterday when they randomly reverted some of my obviously helpful edits (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdvice_for_RfA_voters&diff=1315421235&oldid=1314811469, special:diff/1315422262, special:diff/1315421620). I think an indef is necessary. Sapphaline (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Right-wing POV pusher disrupting articles

Kaisersauce1 (talk · contribs · block user) is a right-wing POV-pusher who regularly disrupts articles and forces their own opinion into them, usually by removing content they disagree with.

Diffs

• [51] User removes a large block of text from Tariff which discusses economists' consensus on them, falsely claiming that the text is "almost absurdly" opinionated.
• Upon having the above edit reverted by Discospinster, ([52]) Kaisersauce1 tendentiously removes more cited content [53].
• [54] User removes cited content about the article subject which portrays it in a negative light.
• [55] User removes cited content about the articles subject which portrays it negatively.
• [56] Ditto.
• [57] User tries to obscure important (and negative) part of the (far-right) subject's life.
• [58] Conversely, here, the user obscures positive attributes of a progressive activist they clearly don't like.
• [59] Again, suppressing negative facts about a conservative BLP.
• [60] User removes discussion of possible racism, without edit summary. I guess we're supposed to be whitewashing history?
• [61] User tries to suppress negative facts about the U.S. in the lead, and then nearly edit wars over it ([62], [63])

And there's plenty more, as a quick look at the contribs will show. Kaisersauce1 is apparently here only to suppress facts to push their own far-right POV, and I propose they be blocked indefinitely to prevent further disruption. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd actually say a lot of those edits are justifiable. The Thomas removal, for example, was arguably undue for placement in the lede of a BLP, and the Bolsonaro conviction didn't need to be mentioned both at the top and bottom of the lede (which is probably too long, anyway). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

They've only had a couple recent edits. They haven't been a very active editor. Have you tried discussing this issue with them? It's quite a lot to go from 0>Indefinite block with barely a warning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

A lot? Would you like to point out specific ones? In my opinion, nos. 100–103, 105, and 109–112 are pretty dire; the others are less bad or questionable. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

For example, the Tariff edit (no. 100 at the moment) includes a link to an NYTimes article about fast-track trading authority by Mankiw which doesn't touch directly on tariffs. The Poole article referenced there claims 90 percent support in a poll that tariffs and quota reduce economic welfare, but 20% of that is "support with provisos", with no indication of what those provisos might be. So, enough doubt could be raised to make removing the section as a WP:BOLD action entirely reasonable. Discussion would have to ensue to determine if there was actual consensus for the "near unanimous consensus" phrasing and the references that claim to support it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

And the Dr. Seuss article links to a single article about racism in his work. A single article might not be enough to support a charge of "recent criticism" -- but adding Seuss Enterprises' withdrawal of 6 of his works, which was not mentioned in the article previous to this, shows that the criticism is substantial enough to mention. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd also agree that at least some of the edits (I have not checked all) are reasonable. For example, the removal of current news stuff from the lede of the article on the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That kind of information can easily go in the history section or criticism section of the article, but current news rather don't belong in the lede when the lede doesn't mention any other aspects of the history of the ICE. Nakonana (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That's what ICE is known for now. (But further content discussion should happen on the talk page there). It is worth noting that most of the user's edits have been reverted, and that their edit summaries extremely clearly show them to be WP:NOTHERE. I think their intent is quite obvious. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

is known for now. That's the problem. Only mentioning in the lede what's on the news now without mentioning the rest of the history is putting undue weight on current events. Nakonana (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff doesn't seem actionable; per above, many of these diffs are arguably justified, and the worst thing you can say is that some of their edits are a little clumsy, and that they seem like they are a Republican.

I don't think there is any policy against being a little clumsy, or against being a Republican. I personally prefer to be neither, of course, but de gustibus non disputandum. jp×g🗯️ 06:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The last three diffs aren't "clumsiness", they're deliberate POV-pushing and whitewashing. Also, the near-edit war behaviour shows he isn't WP:HERE, just to disrupt. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Which last three diffs do you mean? The currently labeled diffs number 61, 62, and 63, which are cases of 1. removal of unreferenced content from a BLP, 2. removal of content which is sourced to a link that does not have the claimed information, 3. a content dispute about what belongs in the lede and what doesn't?

Or are you referring to the diffs labeled as 63, 64, and 65, which is said content dispute about what belongs in the lede and what not, and should be addressed on the article talk page? Nakonana (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, diff 61 is from 2024, diff 62 is from 2022, and diffs 63-65 are from 2021. Nakonana (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I could also make the argument that they're removing left-wing bias from articles. Some of the edits seem pretty legit and there is no doubt that there is bias on Wikipedia from multiple sides. Proposing an indefinite ban seems pretty extreme IMO. Dark Dreaming (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to dismiss that right-wing POV pushing is an issue right now because, frankly, I've seen a significant increase in POV pushing both to attack left-wing groups and BLPs and to treat as more mainstream right-wing political extremist BLPs. But these edits don't really seem to be that.

I'll note here: [64] that the source being removed is a broken link. I did find the doi here and it is published work but it is graduate scholarship which we don't generally treat as reliable as post-graduate scholarship though it may be allowable. In other words, it's a marginal source.

This example here [65] seems to be taking material out of the lead. While more detail should have been provided in the edit summary about the justification for removal it is not, on its face, disruptive.

The edit summary here is unfortunate [66] and uncivil but, again, falls short of disruptive and this edit [67] is just simply and flatly correct.

My personal opinion on the War on Drugs as a policy notwithstanding this edit is compliant with WP best practice [68]. The back-and-forth with Discospinster at Tariff is not best practice but it's also short of the bar for disruptive as of yet. On the other hand this edit is non-neutral and rather extreme [69]. So what we have here is a very mixed bag.

However, while it's pretty clear that this editor has a POV and that the POV is right-wing, it's not clear that they're just here to push that POV. Some of their edits are bad. Others are good. They should avoid edit-warring but, unfortunately, the 3RR bright-line is often interpreted by new editors as a rigid definition so they may not realize, as a new editor, that some of their activity which doesn't hit 3RR would be a violation of edit warring.

I'd suggest a logged warning for WP:CIV and edit warring is about the most that would be appropriate here based on these diffs. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: The back-and-forth on Tariff happened in January.

On the other hand this edit is non-neutral and rather extreme [69]. I actually found this ICE edit ok, see my reasoning above.

graduate scholarship which we don't generally treat as reliable as post-graduate scholarship As far as I know, we're even supposed to avoid doctor's theses as references. Post-graduate means Master's thesis, if I'm not mistaken? (I'm not too savvy on American terminology here.) So, graduate scholarship means Bachelor's thesis? I don't think that we can use a Bachelor's thesis as a reference for accusations of racist themes. That needs a better source, and if it is actually an opinion that is commonly held among scholars, it should be easy to find a better source. If we'd still want to have the statement in the wiki article even without a better source then the statement would require clear attribution. But that's kind of redundant rambling because there were other scholary sources already present in the wiki article at the time of the edit so that there really was no need to reference a graduate scholarship work. Nakonana (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Graduate work = master's or PhD or postdoc. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. But then what is "post-graduate"? Nakonana (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Academic work by people who have completed formal schooling. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

As for the age of these postings, we're talking about an editor who has managed just a hair over 100 edits total across all spaces. They're not doing a lot of any sort of editing. That's to say I'm kind of ignoring the age of the edits since, if the edits were disruptive, it would represent a substantial percentage of their overall edit history. But, yeah, not really disruptive. Not ideal but below the bar for AN/I at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Seems like Cremastra should be trouted for bringing this semifrivolous issue that only they see to ANI, and others don't even see the issue about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.186.32.138 (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535

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

---

Can someone tell User:Pi.1415926535 to stick to WP:MOS and to convention? 161.29.202.46 (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1202#Disruptive editing by 161.29.202.46. The IP has something against {{commonscat inline}} but refuses to explain what is supposedly wrong with it, and has been making other nonsense edits like removing stub tags from a stub. It's time for a boomerang to stop the disruption. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I have explained it but `you are not understanding the explanation. Also~, a short article it not necessarily a stub article. There are user essays about it. You HAVE to make yourself familiar with the nuances of editing.161.29.202.46 (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Not everyone follows user essays, and they don't have to because they're not policies or guidelines. QwertyForest (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

True, but it help to set best prictice in the absence of policiy. 161.29.202.46 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

\ 161.29.202.46 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The IP's explanation apparently consists of telling me Are you blind and as thick as two short planks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

IP, your explanations are inadequate. No, we can't all see whitespace or some unspecified icon in "the wrong place" as you can; we may be using a different skin from you (registered editors have a choice of not using the default), and chances are we're on a different device with different browser settings. (I see you've also been reinstating "30em" for reference display; it's now better practice to let the browser dictate that.) "Too much whitespace" is a notorious sign that what you see is not what others see. The earlier thread revealed that there is a display problem with one template, but you utterly failed to point out what the problem was. And none of us can figure out what your beef is with Commonscat inline; is it perhaps that it should have a dot??? Explain, or your edits will be indistinguishable from edit warring for the sake of edit warring, and nobody will appreciate and fix the issues you have spotted. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

If there is a fault that I can see and editors can't then there is a fault. 161.29.202.46 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That's an absolute non-answer, would you care to try again? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it is to do with the different skins. It only shows up on some. The increasing complexity of WP make it hard for editors to sort out prob lems. 161.29.202.46 (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Then it's a problem with the skin, not with the content, and should be brought to WP:VPT or Phabricator as a bug report. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Leaving aside the overly-jocular immediate thought of "If there's a fault only you can see and no one else can, that's not a fault, that's a hallucination," we can scarcely be expected to change something millions of people worldwide use just because you alone have a problem with it -- the more so in that you're unable to articulate exactly what the issue is. Ravenswing 23:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not hallucinating. There is a fault. User:Grutness, a long established reliable editor, has seen it. Maybe you should log off and see for yourself. It seems that there are a lot of editors that shoot down an anon instead of looking deeper. 161.29.202.46 (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here. If you're referring to the commons cat links, User:Pi.1415926535 is correct that the template being used is fine. Similarly, if you're referring to the stub tag removal and indirectly to my essay on the subject, that article was still a stub. An article on such a subject could easily be longer. Grutness...wha? 03:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The IP is once again following me to my recent edits and mass reverting with nonsense rationales. This is a CIR issue and it's harassment - it's time for a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I turn out to have been at least partially correct: the IP rightly believes the commonscat-inline template should be used with a bullet point to match other external links, including those produced by other templates. See their rude post at Pi's talk; see also the history of Delray Beach station, where I added the bullet point, they liked that ... yet they reverted again to the non-inline version! So (a) they're making all this fuss and hurling insults at least in large part about a dot; and (b) they still revert because in some way they decline to specify, it's still not "right". I see they've now agreed with me about skins likely playing a role—but since they still decline to clearly describe the problem(s), or to stop reverting, I don't think we owe them any further patience. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Also this comment on their talk page when I went to apply the block does not instill confidence. For civility issues, disruptive editing, and continued insistience they're right without giving details, blocked the IP for six months. Long duration for the IP block but they have been engaging in this conduct since (at least) May, so it's a long-term very stable IP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Tonyboy bautista

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

I am reporting Tonyboy bautista for continious unreferenced edits and zero communication. The reported editor has been in Wikipedia since 2009, to still not post references, not use the edit summary and not answer to talk page messages. If we look at their contributions page, a lot of unreferenced content added with a blank edit summary.Hotwiki (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Also just looking at their talk page, I was reminded that its the same person who did this in my talkpage, 3 years ago.[70] Hotwiki (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

...this sure does look like an 8,000+ edit account whose only edits to talk pages other than article moves are moving Hotwiki's talk page into draft space (??), Special:Permalink/801546617 in 2017, and a cluster of edits to make a protected edit request Special:Diff/662894050. On the other hand, I'm not sure anyone has ever tried talking to them as a human being rather than with templates. I've dropped a note on their talk page that WP:Communication is required. @Hotwiki, if they continue editing without responding, could you please provide specific diffs of some of their problematic edits? I have spot-checked a few and in many cases I can't tell if the relevant information is already in an existing reference; in at least a couple cases it was. Rusalkii (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

This was back in March 2022, when they moved my talk page to a draft page.[71] I didn't use a warning template for that message. I'm also still unsure what triggered the editor to move my talkpage into a draft, as this[72] was my first talk page message to them, based on the history on their talkpage. Hotwiki (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

My problem with this editor, is despite 5 warnings in their talk page (from me, this 2025) and another two in 2024, they chose to ignore warning messages, and proceed to make unreferenced edits again and again. Their block log states they were already blocked in 2019, for the same reason they are being reported now.[73] I don't think this editor is willing to communicate, compromise and I'm quite certain the reported editor won't respond to this ANI report, and they would just continue their editing pattern. Hotwiki (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tonyboy bautista: has ignored this ANI report. They recently made two unreferenced/unexplained edits after two editors notified them directly in their talkpage about this ANI report.[74][75] Hotwiki (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

LLM misuse by SouthernTHKnown

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

---

SouthernTHKnown (talk · contribs) is an editor with a non-native level of English ([76], [77]) who has likely used LLMs extensively while editing articles, primarily Traditional Thai clothing: [78], [79], [80], etc. This LLM-generated content is often unsourced, for which they have been warned [81], and displays classic signs of LLM "puffery" that violates WP:NPOV. The user has been notified about their LLM use on their talk page [82] as well as the talk page of the Traditional Thai clothing article [83]. They fairly implausibly denied their use of LLMs in this edit summary while removing a warning from their talk page. I then gave them a final-ish warning here [84], to which they again denied using LLMs [85], before apparently changing their mind [86] and [87]. I was initially optimistic but then they immediately went and used an LLM to introduce more unsourced content [88] NicheSports (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah these are definitely AI, and fairly blatant as there are tons of hallucinations. Spot checking a few edits and sources:

• This edit introduces citations to the journals "Journal of Southern Thai Culture" and "Thai Folklore Review," which, unless their actual titles are Thai, don't seem to exist per Google. The titles of the articles also read very much like AI "article" titles would, which is obviously not impossible in the real world but combined with the other stuff is a bad sign.
• Likewise, this edit cites the "Journal of Ancient Performative Arts," which also does not seem to exist, as well as seemingly nonexistent books Shadow Theatre in Ancient China and Invocations and Verses in Southeast Asian Shadow Theatre (supposedly by Somsak Khanthong, but Google shows no academic by that name).
• This cites a fact about Lan Na to an article by one Timothy K. Hacker, with references to Sukhothai and Ayutthaya. The article is real (although the URL given is broken), but it seems to mention nothing about Sukhothai or Ayutthaya, and its author is Tiffany Hacker, not Timothy, and there do not appear to be any academics in this subject area named Timothy K. Hacker, Timothy Hacker, Tim Hacker, etc. (I guess it's technically possible Tiffany transitioned.)

I stopped spot checking at this point but it doesn't look good. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• This should be Exhibit A for why all use of AI for the generation of either article content or talk-page posts should trigger an immediate indefinite block. There is no use case whatsoever for such "contributions": if an editor cannot (as in this case) write competent English, then they have no way of checking the output of an AI robot -- if you can't write it in the first place, you can't check what the robot writes. We therefore have, as always in these cases, a WP:CIR situation. No competent person would imagine that AI is helping them do anything useful. EEng 14:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Followup: AI hallucinates the existence of a secret Underground station beneath Buckingham Palace. EEng 04:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

As someone who has almost no interest in trains but subscribes to Jago Hazzard's quirky and well-informed YouTube channel, I can vouch for that link. Anyone who quotes Betteridge's Law, Occam's Razor, Dr Strangelove and Airplane! in a 10-minute video is OK by me. Narky Blert (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

For clarification, in editing and words I did not use AI at all. And for citations, I asked for the help of AI to turn the cites into code because sadly Wikipedia information is very little, you can hardly learn anything online and at the only thing that I used it for because there is absolutely no reason to not using ai to turn cites into citation codes because users are not capable in digital coding and computer stuff. SouthernTHKnown (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Using AI to turn citations into code is using it for editing. Using it to turn citations into code can still cause issues like the ones mentioned in this discussion. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  We have a guide on how to cite sources (including how the code works) at Help:Citing sources. Also, if you go to the page for any individual citation template (such as Cite news or Cite web) it has some information about how that template works. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, yes I certainly denied because I literally did not use AI in editing, I don't know if you are offended or misunderstood about anything but this is actually how I have been writing since I was in school and until now. After you warned me about my edits that seem like ai generated, I disagreed. Yet, I immediately improved the edits I have made because your concern matters and the edits actually can be developed more. Yes, I am non-native speaker of English, but I am fluent in English language and we as the global citizens should not be restricted of using our language skills and specific knowledge to be a part of Wikipedia community. No one deserves to be blocked from some mistakes they did not know they were wrong because they were not professional in digital literacy, every mistake makes humans learn to better in their works and to fulfill, perfectionism should never stop the passion of editors to do their works and learn as well. I realized that no one cares about this page at all and this page deserves information as the one who knows about its information, I am glad to give what I know to the readers worldwide, I am Thai and not many Thais care about it. Moreover, please see what the actual issue is. I noticed that there is a Cambodian editor trying to put biases and misunderstanding due to nationalism and discrimination among nations by creating false information and as the last edit before you deleted my edits, the user before that mentioned the reason as "Thai people use Chong kraben from Cambodia, Tai people came afterwards from southern China in the land of khmers(Thailand)" which was undeniably racist and this behavior and action must be restricted than my case as the one who really cares about the page of Traditional Thai costumes. I know information about Thailand, clothing, food and of course, I am Thai by nationality and ethnicity, which pushes me to be here as an inspiration and a force for good. I bet you think my words seem to be ai generated again, it is alright because everyone is different and thinkers are free to share and show their works. Thank you for your concern, Wikipedia editing is just my temporary hobby during my free time as a cultural diplomat of a province in Thailand, and I am sorry for anything that may bothered you or may be inappropriate. Also please do something with the biases from Cambodia, wish you a happy day. SouthernTHKnown (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@SouthernTHKnown can you respond to what @Gnomingstuff had found about? – robertsky (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have responded just now. Thank you for your concern, I am really new to Wikipedia and did not know how to turn journals and cites into codes, which requires technical usage of digital literacy and coding. Again, I am just a new user recently, not a professional editor with occupation. SouthernTHKnown (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, but I just don't believe that AI was not used for this. The writing style is exactly that of AI, and is not the same writing style you are using here. Stuff like Some regarded the introduction of modern instruments as an evolution aligned with contemporary tastes, The Tap Drum: Core of the Ensemble, From intricate weaving techniques to symbolic patterns and forms, Northern Thai attire reflects not only aesthetic beauty but also the values and identity, these garments endure as a living heritage, expressing historical continuity, social identity, and artisanal craftsmanship, etc., are phrased exactly like AI phrases things, and not like you are phrasing things.

Even if you aren't using AI -- which I find very unlikely -- you are going about things backward; you are supposed to write things that are verified by sources you have already read, not write things and then try to find something that backs them up. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

As you said, I immediately went to use more of ai-generated information, I would like to deny that. I went to polish and refine what you were concerned of using AI, you can use any website or tool to detect ai-generated as you desire. Thank you. SouthernTHKnown (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey guys, I want an LLM ban as much as anyone but I don't think discussing that is relevant to this thread and it doesnt help admins resolve it. What is relevant are the questions 1) is SouthernTHKnown using LLMs disruptively, and for more than just generating citations as they claim? and 2) if so, what should be done about it? As for #1, I think the answer is "yes, beyond any reasonable doubt" from which it follows that they are also not being honest about their editing practices. And for #2, I would like to see an indefinite block. This behavior is damaging to the project and due to the likely dishonesty their edits will need to be tracked for unsourced, hallucinated, and non-neutral content indefinitely. Which is not fair to the editors who are already overwhelmed with cleanup cases at WT:AIC (and beyond, as I know that several of us are tracking/handling additional cases informally) NicheSports (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. See my longer post below. EEng 20:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Isn't it about time that we had a proper policy simply outright banning LLM/AI? GiantSnowman 15:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It'll probably end as no consensus, since there are some people who strongly feel LLMs should be allowed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I would agree it is time they are causing some serious issues. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Significantly more harm than good - and also just plain laziness. GiantSnowman 15:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Well intended or not, agree that it is "more harm than good " and that they have been warned but continued pattern. I support short block. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• A "short block" is insufficient and pointless.
  • The crap this guy is posting to articles is obviously, nauseatingly AI-generated:
    • Despite its decline in daily use, the sabai remains a symbol of Thai cultural heritage and is still worn today in traditional ceremonies, classical dance performances, and historical reenactments, preserving its place in the rich tapestry of Thai history. [89]
    • Style adaptations now include the use of premium fabrics like silk or fine cotton, and color variations such as cream, ivory, or even light pastels to suit different themes or skin tones. Some choose to pair the jacket with slacks for a more contemporary look, or coordinate accessories like metallic belts, cufflinks, or minimal jewelry to enhance elegance. Despite its historical roots, the Raj pattern continues to evolve, blending tradition with modern style for a timeless, dignified appearance. [90]
    • Historically, Northern Thailand’s cultural foundations trace back to the kingdoms of Hariphunchai and Ngoenyang ... For centuries, Lan Na remained a powerful center of political influence, artistic expression, and Buddhist devotion, while maintaining dynamic relations with neighboring states such as Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, and Burma. Among its most remarkable legacies is its clothing tradition, an art form shaped by geography, climate, and centuries of cultural exchange. From intricate weaving techniques to symbolic patterns and forms, Northern Thai attire reflects not only aesthetic beauty but also the values and identity of Lan Na society. Today, these textiles and garments remain a living heritage, embodying the enduring significance of Northern Thailand where history, culture, and artistry converge. [91] (note the telltale curly apostrophe in Thailand’s -- and there's another in the word region’s in this diff [92])
  • Then he denied he was using AI:

  From the first link you mentioned, I polished words to be easier to understand, which everyone can do without the help of artificial intelligence if you know how to write in a proper and better to reduce misunderstanding among international readers. From the second and third link about Southern Thai clothing and Northern Thai clothing, these are the short conclusion of all the details in a nutshell, I do not see anything bothering the edit. I wanted it to give information in term of storytelling because it is simpler to understand the overall as it is the rule of thumb "Be simple" along with be academic with the information you give. I am not sure if you are more familiar with the common way of writing, but Wikipedia is available for those who are capable in new methods, new ideas to present, and other ways from the old ways we usually edited. From the last link, I see nothing generated by AI, it is the bear explaination of the structure of clothing itself, which I went deep to each detail for readers to see the illustration of actual clothings. Some of my edits are actually the polished and refined version of the old ones but with the improvement in some terms. Thank you for your concerns, I will continue to give basic education to global citizens as my legacy but with your suggestions, I will change and adapt my skills for the better Wikipedia information. [93]

He was lying, of course, since quite obviously the author of that gibberish could not have written the junk I quoted earlier. More self-indicting lying:

I am capable in writing, it may seems like ai-generated but I am sure that it is my skills that I put in each editing. [94]

• Then he admitted to using AI:

  I am looking forward to change some edits that show signs of LLM output. [95]

So we've got WP:CIR in the form of grossly substandard English skills, combined with persistent use of AI to generate hallucinations and just plain awful crap, combined with lying about it. What more to we need for an indef? EEng 20:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: I suggested short term block as I thought some block was clearly in order, and as user had not been blocked previously, so I was cautious. However I see that The Bushranger has already imposed an indefinite block - for the record I endorse this action. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• User:EEng: The article has been reverted to its state before someone turned it into a urinal. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• Use of LLMs is not, at this time, a directly blockable issue. Use of LLMs and then lying about it, however, is absolutely disruptive editing. I've indef'd SouthernTHKnown. Indefinite is not infinite, but they will need to exhibit a fair bit more clue than they have to convince someone to unblock them. If they do, of course, anyone may do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  Let me lay out what I've for some time been saying should be the terms of any unblock in cases like this:

  • (1) Unblock request must be in the editor's own words, and clearly show that they understand that AI use is completely unacceptable in the generation of article content or talk-page contributions.
  • (2) After unblock, any further infraction should result in another indef, with a one-year minimum before a second unblock request.

  Those terms, however, assume that the user has sufficient proficiency in English to contribute usefully. That's obviously not the case here, so an unblock would have to include evidence that that deficiency is no longer present, which is certainly not going to be the case until a few years from now at least. I actually can't see any scenario under which this user could be unblocked in the foreseeable future. EEng 23:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Adam Milstein: Scrubbing and Hounding

Editors at Adam Milstein have been removing previously settled content (see RfC) from the article over the objections of other editors with feigned effort at building consensus. Namely, Metallurgist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Iljhgtn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Marquardtika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

More importantly, my account has been the target of what appears to be a harassment campaign as the primary editor doing the work of restoring content that this group of editors take issue with. For context, I have not interacted with these editors and they have not interacted with any of the pages I’ve created or contributed to prior to my edits at Adam Milstein, which began this year.

Beginning in August:

1. A sock, MarineArchitect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created purely to harass me, which threatened to remove my unrelated contributions, and specifically threatened those related to Marshall Berman. This account has since been banned for harrassment.

2. User:Metallurgist unsuccessfully attempted to remove a number of entirely unrelated pages I’ve created or contributed to, notably pages related to Marshall Berman: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3

3. User:Iljhgtn has attempted to remove an unrelated contribution, also related to Marshall Berman: Link

This strikes me as a clear pattern of attempts to remove wholly unrelated content that comprise the bulk of my work on Wikipedia, and appear coordinated.

See 'Undercover footage' and 'Scrubbing', in the talk archive here. My last comments attempting to reach a consensus (despite much of the removed content having been settled previously) are the last in the threads, and much of the harassment took place following these attempts.

Given there are users who have been paid to edit the article I think some action is warranted, as it appears to be an attempt at intimidation in order to sanitize Adam Milstein by hounding me off of wikipedia. 81567518W (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how did you determine the list of users you notified of this discussion? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I've notified everyone named in the post as well as editors who have either recently participated in the talk page or were major contributors to the original RfC. Just notified two more from the last RfC discussion. Hoping that anyone with more extensive familiarity with the history of this page could add context or insight. 81567518W (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

For those who doesn't know: Adam Milstein is a rather wealthy man, who has supported a lot of far-right pro-Israeli groups. And he ha been sentenced for fraud. You wouldn't know that by reading his article, as the "controversy" -section has been scrubbed, even saying "According to The Intercept" -when WP:INTERCEPT marks it as green, ie no need for attribution. And Marquardtika removed a Mondoweiss-source with edit-line: "drop Mondoweiss per WP:MONDOWEISS", [96], when WP:MONDOWEISS is yellow-listed and can be used with attribution. This article stinks of paid editing, Huldra (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

As for hounding, sorry, that is pretty common, User:81567518W: you get better get used to it. I note that the AfDs were all "keep" though, with the exception of the nominator. Huldra (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. I have edited at Adam Milstein and have had content disputes with 81567518W there. The last I noticed, they were blocked for edit warring there. This all stems from a content dispute that has probably graduated from the article's talk page to needing to go to a relevant content noticeboard, like WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN. Perhaps it makes sense to pursue dispute resolution via WP:DRN. But beyond content/editorial issues (which I know don't belong on this board), it sounds like 81567518W is accusing me and others of hounding/harassment (behavioral issues which do belong on this board). But none of the stated instances of perceived harassment seem to have to do anything with me. 81567518W, can you clarify this? Do you believe that I engaged in hounding or harassment? Marquardtika (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

No one has accused you of hounding or harassment. 81567518W (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, then I'm confused why you mentioned me in your complaint? Shouldn't we be discussing content issues at a more appropriate venue? Marquardtika (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's useful for context, in addition to potential COI concerns I've raised. Sort of difficult to separate these things at this point. 81567518W (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see what would be actionable here. MarineArchitect is already indefinitely blocked for the behavior listed here, and if you're going to suggest there's an organized harassment campaign, you're going to need to do a lot better than this, evidence wise. Otherwise, this seems like a bog standard content dispute. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

"Better than this" meaning what, exactly? It's clearly evolved past the point of a content dispute thanks to the actions of the editors named above. 81567518W (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed to drop this nonsense, as @ToBeFree advised. Why are you tagging me in this and personally attacking me now? I think it would be best to move on from this foolishness before you get blocked again. At this point, I am about ready to ask for an IBAN against you. Also wondering why you tagged everyone and their grandmother on this. Metallurgist (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of behavior I'm talking about. 81567518W (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

An IBAN would be suitable for both you and Iljhgtn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but additionally I think there needs to be some assurance that your pattern of behavior doesn't continue against others you disagree with. I'm not happy it's gotten to this point either, but as you can see from the post, the harassment has continued. 81567518W (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@81567518W You edit warred over and over against consensus and policy, nothing about that is harassment. You were blocked for this behavior, and your appeal was denied three times because you insisted on just having things your way.

But while we are here, on what basis is this your own work? [97] Do you own the photo? It looks like a scan from a book. Did you write the book? If so, which book? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

No one has claimed edit warring is hounding or harassment. Numerous meritless, targeted deletion requests certainly are, though.

We are not here to relitigate a content dispute. If you'd like to raise that elsewhere, you are free to. 81567518W (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I currently lack an opinion about the matter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

81567518W (talk · contribs) if you have issues with editor behavior, such as hounding, file a report at WP:AE. As to allegations of "scrubbing", you shared a diff from 10 years and hundreds of edits ago. Do not cast aspersions or make allegations of coordination. Finally, Milstein's wealth or political beliefs do not make them fodder for violating WP:DUE or WP:BLP. Longhornsg (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Koo-1876

Koo-1876 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Koo-1876 continues to keep adding granular and trivial information to Featured articles like this, this and this despite being asked to refrain from doing so, see here and here. I recommend indefinite suspension until they show good behavior. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to mention that this editor has already been blocked twice this year for disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Indef. They keep making these edits despite warning and as per Liz they have already been blocked twice this year for disruptive editing. This sanction is needed to stop the disruption. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I have been frequently annoyed by the aptly characterized granular and trivial stuff they keep adding to articles. There is suitable material mixed in with the kibbles, but judgement about which is which seems severely lacking. I would like to see an undertaking to listen to other editors and stop with the "a single whale was seen on that date" edits, or failing that, some kind of sanction to prevent these practices. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Editor continually re-adding original research to an article

I have tried to be as welcoming as I can to Sharnadd. But they keep returning to the article for ketchup chips to add original research about its origins. The first time it was by citing a source that did not verify when the chips were first sold in the UK, just that the company sold the flavour [98]. I reverted this addition. [99] Then they inserted the content again. [100] I've engaged in at least two conversations with the hope that they'd get it (see User talk:Clovermoss/Archive 15#Ketchup chips and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1256#Use of sources). This all happened between May and July, so I thought that would be the end of it, especially because we seemed to come to an understanding at the Teahouse. But today they removed sourced content with their edit summary including the aforementioned original research [101]. A quick glance at their talk page seems to indicate that this editor has added unsourced information about English origins to other food articles as well, so as much as I hate to start an ANI thread, I think it's probably nessecary at this point. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

To be a bit more specific to what I was referring to above, other issues with food-related articles were brought up at User talk:Sharnadd #December 2024, User talk:Sharnadd#Food origins, and User talk:Sjö/Archive 12#Cucumber sandwhich. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#Sharnadd and disruptive editing/CIR. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that Sharnadd is correct on the factual claim. The source they reference, Evening Chronicle, says this brand (Tudor) was famous for selling tomato ketchup flavoured chips, and identifies a still as from "a Tudor Crisps advert, 1970s". That ad is available on YouTube (link), where 10 seconds in a "Tomato sauce flavour" chip is visible. If we don't accept the sources verify that Tudor was selling ketchup flavoured chips in the 70s, can we not just use the ad as a source and say tomato ketchup flavoured chips were advertised in the UK by the 70s? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I brought this up in the Teahouse thread above and everyone else who commented there agreed that this was not an acceptable source for this claim. If you disagree with that, restarting discussion on that particular subject is fine, but I'd appreciate it if Sharnadd would stop reinserting the content in again and again without trying to change consensus. Editing is not a matter of whoever can wait the longest to see if you can add something back when the other person isn't looking. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Clovermoss, I was trying to offer a compromise and background. You're right that repeatedly reinserting material rather than pursuing dispute resolution avenues is disruptive. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

You don't really have to apologize for trying to provide context. It can be a bit hard knowing how to best interact with new-ish editors who are acting in good faith yet being disruptive at the same time. I'm not an expert at it either. But I tried asking for a third opinion back when this first happened because I wasn't sure if they were even aware that was an option and I didn't want it to be a possible ownership thing on my part. I wanted to them to know it wasn't just me shutting them down and going "no". I'm also not someone who comes to ANI all that often. The last time I made a report, I provided too much extraneous information and it distracted away from the issue I was really trying to get at, so I was trying to be more focused this time around. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Why not, it seems like a perfectly fine source to me. jp×g🗯️ 11:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The reasoning is that it was synthesis. Looking at a one-line caption for a random ad and using that as proof that a company was selling a product in a specific country and was the "true" inventor of it contrary to what every secondary source says is somewhat questionable. But if you disagree with that, you could always start an RfC. But ANI is not the place for content disputes. Again, what I'm concerned about is the behaviour of the other editor. And not just here, across other food-related articles. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't reinsert the content. I removed your claim that it originated in a certain country by a certain company as there is evidence to the contrary and your source was iffy Sharnadd (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Your evidence to the contrary had not been accepted by other editors. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 10:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say it had. I asked if adverts on the subject showing a product was sold could be used as evidence it was decided it couldn't be so I havent put it back on.. .all I removed was a dead link of an iffy source which I put back on with a working link and removed the incorrect information that it originated in canada. I didn't put back on the evidence that they were sold in the 70s in the UK I didn't say they originated in the UK I just changed the line that hostess invented ketchup crisps in thr 70s Sharnadd (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

"[I] removed the incorrect information that it originated in canada": your evidence that implied the information was incorrect was not accepted by other editors, but you removed claims based on it anyway. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 11:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

And since you reverted the corrections the link that I fixed for you is showing as dead again, so you may want to fix that. Also rather than highly debatable claim that they were invented by the hostess group in Canada you may want to say that the hostess group is assumed to have crested the Canadian version of the crisps Sharnadd (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The content you attempted to remove (The invention of ketchup chips is typically attributed to Hostess Potato Chips) already indicates that the claim is disputed, with detail throughout the section detailing the verifiable history of how it has been disputed. Dead links don't have to be removed and there's already an archived version of the link present within the article. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It does make it appear that ketchup chips have there invention attributed to ths company which if true appears to be only the case in Canada. Other areas having the product early don't tend to think this . Maybe it should say in Canada the invention. I only removed it to replace it with the working link Sharnadd (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Because that's what the majority of secondary sources say. They attribute the invention of ketchup chips to the company, and "typically attributes" is a perfectly reasonable way of phrasing that. Other areas having the product early don't tend to think this is not something that is supported by secondary sources (with the exception of what's already written in the article about the US). Wikipedia is a place where we summarize what those sources say, not write content based on our own experiences. I know people have explained this to you before. I dislike going around in circles like this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Unilateral removal of sourced content from Melody (2023 film)

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

---

Hello, I would like to request administrative attention regarding repeated removals by User:Praxidicae from the article Melody (2023 film). The user removed: The entire Awards and Nominations section, which included internationally recognized festivals and awards such as the Oscars (2024 official selection by Tajikistan), ImagineIndia (Madrid), Dhaka, Izmir, Eurasia, Zurich IFF, Silk Road (Xi’an, China), Busan IFF, among others. Several of these entries also listed competitive awards won (e.g., Best Actress at Dhaka, Best Original Music at Izmir, multiple awards at ImagineIndia). All images related to the film. These are not trivial or unsourced claims. The awards are from long-standing international festivals, and coverage exists in reliable sources. According to WP:FILM and WP:RS, such content is notable. If there were concerns about sourcing or licensing, the correct procedure should have been to raise the issue on the Talk page or to tag the images for review — not to remove everything wholesale without discussion. I have already raised this issue on the article’s Talk page, but given the scale of removal, I believe administrative input is necessary to prevent further unilateral deletions and to ensure collaborative consensus. I respectfully ask that administrators review this conduct and advise whether the section and images should be restored pending proper discussion. Thank you Na.234996.ouz (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Praxidicae hasn't edited the article since August and did not repeatedly remove content. This complaint and your edit summaries look to be AI generated, e.g. saying "see Talk page for details" when you have never edited the talk page. [102] You also have not notified Praxidicae of this discussion, as you are required to do. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never claimed that Melody was an Oscar nominee. It was Tajikistan’s official submission to the 97th Academy Awards. While a submission is not the same as a nomination, in the film world it is still regarded as an important recognition and is widely reported by major outlets.

For clarity, I have also changed the section title from Awards and nominations to Accolades, which better reflects the mix of awards, nominations, submissions, and festival selections Na.234996.ouz (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot of garbage on that list. Being the submission of a country to be one of nearly a hundred foreign films sent in to the Academy Awards isn't notable; being a nominee is, and one of the years credited on that list doesn't even manage that much. Being screened at a film festival isn't particularly noteworthy beyond mention in the main text; winning an award, yes, that would be. In any event, this is a content dispute not within ANI's scope, and the proper avenue would have been for you to take your dispute to the talk page. Why haven't you? Ravenswing 12:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never claimed that Melody was an Oscar nominee. It was Tajikistan’s official submission to the 96th Academy Awards. While a submission is not the same as a nomination, in the film world it is still regarded as an important recognition and is widely reported by major outlets.

For clarity, I have also changed the section title from Awards and nominations to Accolades, which better reflects the mix of awards, nominations, submissions, and festival selections Na.234996.ouz (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop using “ai” tools to communicate here, it’s extremely rude. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Na.234996.ouz's userpage previously had a COI declaration on it. [103] Note the edit summary I am the filmmaker of “The Hidden Way” and I am disclosing my COI to comply with Wikipedia's transparency policy, presumably that's Draft:The Hidden Way (film) written, directed, produced, and edited by Behrouz Sebt Rasoul. Na.234996.ouz has uploaded screenshots from Rasoul's films at Commons as own work and verified this with VRT, see c:File:A scene from "Mango" in the movie Melody.jpg. All of their edits are undisclosed self-promotional crosswiki spamming. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

While a broader block may be merited, I have p-blocked @Na.234996.ouz from Melody article for clear DE. Star Mississippi 14:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

And OP has made similar edits regarding “awards” to Behrouz Sebt Rasoul. Having declared then removed a COI declaration, OP is aware of our COI policies. Blocked from mainspace to prevent further violations. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Just now seeing this and I am strictly on my phone so don't have the ability to go in depth but I removed a massive external link list for awards, which, as far as I can tell are not notable but also generally violate the external linking policy. I don't really care one way or another if it gets restored aside from the fact that it's in direct opposition of multiple policies, guidelines and general practices. Dragging me to ANI before trying to discuss it seems a little over the top though. 🤣 SPOOKYDICAE👻 20:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Rapid deletion of long-standing and verifiable content on multiple airport pages

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

---

Summary:
I am reporting repeated disruptive editing by the user Danners430 related to the mass removal of verifiable content across multiple airport articles. The user has deleted substantial, easily verifiable information on airport wiki-pages citing unsourced as justification, despite the easy verification of data via airline and airport websites or looking at something like Google Flights. Attempts in the past to restore data have not been listened to. The content is long-standing and has been on wikipedia for over 5 years.

Multiple mass deletions today across pages such as Soekarno–Hatta International Airport [104], Heathrow Airport[105], Ninoy Aquino International Airport [106], Darwin International Airport [107] and Clark International Airport [108]

Yesterday, there were similiar mass deletions at Suvarnabhumi Airport [109] and Zurich Airport [110].

A week ago, something similiar happened at [111], [112], [113] and [114]

I tried reverting the deletions and suggesting that citation-needed tags [115] [116] and [117] be added instead but this was quickly re-deleted multiple times at [118], [119] and [120]

He/She's recognised that I'm systematically going through airport pages trying to add references that meet all the criteria like WP:V, WP:RS, etc... but the pace of deletion of data seems to have increased. See the talk between them and me at [121]. I'm wondering if my use of a long edit summary to ensure protection of wikipedia against legal threats under intellectual property / copyright law and also explain my edits under Wikipedia:Editing policy#Be helpful: explain seems to have spurred them onto more deletions. My justification for recent edits for adding references explains why I added the references in the first place.

Concerns: The pattern suggests potentially retaliatory or spiteful behavior under the pretext of enforcing sourcing policies. This disrupts content stability and dissuades contributors from improving articles with verifiable information. The intimidation through threats of banning violates Wikipedia’s civility and conflict of interest guidelines.

Request: I respectfully request administrator review of this user’s editing conduct and behavior, and appropriate intervention to prevent further disruption.Wibwob28 (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I've told this editor multiple times that per WP:Verifiability, unsourced content can be deleted at any time, and indeed should never have been added in the first place. I quote: Each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable... Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed which is exactly what I am doing. I tried adding citation needed tags at Hong Kong International Airport, which resulted in a huge flame war on the talk page... and very few sources actually got added.

I stopped interacting with this particular editor after a disagreement yesterday, specifically to stop any escalation, which is why I am pressing ahead with removing content which is unsourced and as such does not belong on Wikipedia. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd also request you provide a diff where I have threatened to ban you - I am not an administrator, so I do not have that power. And why on earth would I wish to ban an editor that's actively adding sources? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a serious issue in airport and airline articles with (very like a small number of) IP-hopping editors adding large amounts of unsourced info. Where that info is obviously unsourced and it's very likely the same people each time, then responding to that unsourced info with a {{cn}} tag instead of deleting it is rewarding that bad behaviour. I think Danners430 is doing Wikipedia a favour and in fact we should be going much further by semi-protecting most/all European airport and airline articles to stop these few bad actors. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll be honest I disagree - while there are a number of "bad actors" that are IP hopping, there are also a number which do provide useful edits such as adding routes with sources, and other genuinely positive edits. It's a case of unfortunately needing to play what-a-mole if we want to keep the good edits. Insofar as cleaning up historic problems though, that's what I've slowly been doing. There's a very simple reason the frequency has sped up... It's the weekend and I have nothing else to do! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, but it often seems like the bad outweigh the good. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Aye, it does often feel like you're pissing into the wind (pardon the French)... but reverting the unsourced additions is quick and easy, and it means the occasional good edit does get through. Obviously if they become persistent on a page then perhaps worth protecting for a week or so until they lose interest... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I for one am more inclined to look at the substance of a complaint if it's expressed in the editor's own words rather than being pseudo-legalese bombast generated by an LLM. Narky Blert (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on the legalese… but is it LLM? I haven’t seen any obvious signs, so I’ve always assumed good faith up until now… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it may be that the wording and formatting is off… if it is LLM then it is moderately to heavily edited 37.186.55.30 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

please don't use excessive linebreaks by the way and use diffs and not refs 2A04:7F80:62:D1F5:8455:E492:2D4C:3092 (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Wibwob28 I hope you don't mind, but I've converted the diff links you provided into inline links. While you're quite right that inline links shouldn't be used in articles per the MOS, they're perfectly OK on a discussion page like this, and they're easier to follow that way. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems like more of a content dispute than a behavioral issue... Just starting from the top of the complaint Danners430's edits aren't rapid in the sense that that term is generally used on wikipedia. I think you're splitting hairs with the easy verification argument... If you're right and they are easy to verify and therefore little work to add back in with a source... You also don't seem to understand that just because something is verifiable it doesn't mean that its WP:DUE. You appear to be overselling the stability argument as well. I'm not seeing support for the idea that Danners430 has changed their editing practices to target you either... And I'm also not seeing intimidation or disruption here (at least on Danners430's part... If theres anything here its a curved Australian throwing weapon). I don't think Danners430 is using a pretext here, I think they're genuinely working to improve the encyclopedia and should be thanked for their efforts in such a difficult topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. But Wibwob28 has also been edit warring extensively. As such they've lost access to edit articles for the time being. Star Mississippi 14:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I generally agree on this, adding citation tags is the better alternative than removing massive amounts of routes, the list will be very incomplete if these routes are removed, some of these routes are already in operation for a very long time and possibly even before Wikipedia was born, besides if you really want to see them being sourced, why dont you find sources yourself rather than just removing all these information? Metrosfan (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that this thread previously existed raising another concern in this same user which had been left unresolved Danners430 and zealous enforcement of WP:V by repeated blanket reversions Metrosfan (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Well I’m sorry, but that flies in the face of our verifiability policy, as I quoted above. It’s a policy, not optional guidance. If you want to add sources then be my guest - the project and myself would thank you, which is what the OP in this thread was doing. However, the sheer amount of unsourced content in these articles that has accumulated over the years means that something needs doing now to tidy them up and bring the articles up to standard. The lists do not need to be complete, it’s as simple as that - Wikipedia operates on a principle of WP:Verifiability not truth. If there are no sources for a route, then it simply doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

And why can't you help out in finding reliable sources to add on these routes but only remove them? I would understand that there are common vandalism committed by certain IP addresses but some of these routes have operated for a long time, possibly even before Wikipedia was born, if you really want these routes to be sourced, perhaps wouldn't it be better if you help out in adding sources to these unsourced routes rather than making these massive removals? Just because a source isn't added there doesn't mean sources about the route completely doesn't exist Metrosfan (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Two points to address…

1. Because of the volume of unsourced nonsense in these articles, I’m removing it now as it’s quicker and safer, than later once sources can be found they can be re-added.

2. It doesn’t matter if a route has operated since the Stone Age - if it’s not sourced, it doesn’t belong - that’s the end of the matter. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:V: Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. It's ideal if a reference is provided instead but there is no obligation to an editor to do so, and as mentioned in some cases it may not be possible to verify them through reliable sources. The fact that some of these routes have operated for a long time, possibly even before Wikipedia was born is completely irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

What I want to imply here is that if they are on it for a long time it should be obvious enough that they aren't vandalism and therefore should have been cited with sources instead of removed,and how is removing these routes "quicker and safer"? You are removing a large amount of information there, You rarely add sources to unsourced routes than you remove massive amounts of unsourced routes, the way that you make more edits removing these routes instead backing them up with sources isn't tidying them up but making the mess worse, and for the record, it can reach the standards while at the same time being complete, the way that you continue to remove these massive amounts of edits while you hardly add sources leaves a mess for others to clean up when many other editors have to re-add a bunch of these routes Metrosfan (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

it should be obvious enough that they aren't vandalism Vandalism has nothing to do with it. They are being removed for not being cited with reliable sources and thus failing WP:V. This is entirely within policy, and unless citations are being provided the editors who are re-add[ing] a bunch of these routes would be in violation of it. There is no mandate to find sources for unsourced content. It can, by policy, be removed without notice. It is preferred to find sources, yes, but any editor, for any reason, who removes it instead is not doing anything wrong and is, in fact, still helping to ensure the encyclopedia is accurate. It also is most certainly not making the mess worse - the mess is, in fact, the fact there is so much uncited content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

As an editor, I generally think it tends to be a net negative when people remove stuff without attempting to find a source (unless it is obviously idiotic, false or libelous). It's permitted by policy, but I can't really think of much benefit it brings, and there is a lot of detriment (e.g. an editor later on who does have the time to look for sources will simply never see the uncited passage to begin with, meaning it is lost forever). jp×g🗯️ 11:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but here’s the problem… there is a stupid quantity of content that isn’t sourced. In one article alone, I’ve removed over 100 unsourced routes, and there are thousands of airport articles that need sorting. If I sat down and sourced each of those, I would spend a whole day on a single article… and most of the time I don’t know where to find sources beyond a couple of websites (AeroRoutes or whatever Google shows me). This is one occasion where I’m afraid that WP:There is a deadline comes into play due to this content failing WP:V. Where there’s an obvious source I can add in seconds, I’ll use that.

What I am more than willing to discuss as a middle ground is “commenting out” routes that are unsourced - that way they’re still in the source, but invisible to readers until a source is found. That is, of course, unless EEng starts a discussion to have the tables removed altogether (which I personally support). Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Not a month goes by that we don't get a report here of some cosmic struggle over lists of destinations reachable from various airports. How about if the airfanboys just stop stuffing airport articles with that useless WP:NOTGUIDE material in the first place? It's endless, useless churn. If people want to find out how to get from X to Y they should Google it. Then the airfanboys don't have to argue over sourcing, and we don't have to referee their squabbles. EEng 11:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I’ve made that suggestion a few times in the relevant WikiProject, but it goes down like a lead balloon… IMHO a short summary of which airlines operate to how many countries would suffice. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  Wikiprojects don't get to override core Wikipedia policy. Unsourced tables are generally worse than useless, since the reader can't see whether they were edited a week ago, or ten years ago. And even a sourced table is unlikely to be current enough to be useful. They are essentially fancruft, rather than encyclopaedic information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I know - but there hasn't been any consensus anywhere for such a fundamental change, which is why I've never been bold enough to go ahead and do it. Like I said - personally I'm 100% in favour of @EEng's suggestion, and with yourself that it's not encyclopaedic... but I feel like wholesale removal would simply be a step too far to just go ahead and do without some form of consensus. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thinking outside the box, would it be outrageous to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) over given that these lists clearly contravene existing WP:NOTGUIDE policy, whether the community wishes to enforce their removal, or instead to add some sort of exception to the policy for airport-destination aviation fancruft? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  Not a terrible idea... I'll draft something after I've put the dinner on. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  Fantastic idea. I'll be sure comment. Please put a notification here if that's OK. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  Opened at WP:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists - WP:NOTGUIDE? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent bad faith assumption and personal attacks by User:Aciram

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

Aciram has been casting aspersions and assuming bad faith for a while, to the point where ignoring them is no longer an option.

• This last comment of theirs consists of a list of aspersions that they won't able to substantiate. The claim that An PI-adress is not normally given as much weight as a registered user is not even worth answering.
• Talk:Barbary_slave_trade#Use_of_slaves: an uncalled for personal attack.
• Talk:Slavery_in_al-Andalus#Some_sources_need_improvement: a series of aspersions.
• Assuming bad faith with an IP: falsely claiming that the IP has vandalised the article and accusing them of having an agenda.

Basically, in their view, if you don't agree with them, then you must be a vandal (or at the very least, have an agenda that they will repeat everywhere to discredit you). M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you provide some more examples that are recent? The middle two are from January 2025 and April 2024 respectively. And the latter is a whopping 1,083 words...

Anyway, from my view, if I have to go PURELY based on my opinion on the whole sex slavery thing - I agree with Aciram. However, this isn't supposed to be a collection of opinions. It has to be neutral and reliably sourced, and I feel like Aciram is letting her personal views shield her judgement. I will not engage in communication with this User Aciram, I'm really sorry, but unless there is an IBAN imposed, if you have a content dispute that M.Bitton is on the other side of - you've got to communicate. I do empathise with your struggles with anxiety as I can relate but I don't exactly see it as M.Bitton's fault for trying to contact you. This is purely from what I've read though, if there's more context being left out I'm likely to develop my opinions. jolielover♥talk 16:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I listed the others to show how long the assumption of bad faith has been going on. M.Bitton (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

M.Bitton; could you please explain why when Aciram asked you to avoid communicating with them [122] you decided to double down and post on their talk page anyway while calling their mental health into doubt? [123] Wow. Just...wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That was in April of last year (when I was the subject of a personal attack by them). I avoided their talk page ever since. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't explain your actions. If you believe you've been the target of a personal attack, it does not excuse your behavior and allow you to make a personal attack against them. Please explain your actions, since this is wholly inadequate. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That was in the past and it hasn't been repeated since, unlike their aspersions casting and persistent bad faith assumption. 17:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That's still not an explanation. Please explain why you decided to double down and attack them with this? You're willing to dismiss the past because it came from 2024 but not dismiss comments from Aciram in the past. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I believed what I said back then (having mental health issues doesn't justify casting aspersions) and in any case, I haven't repeated it since, unlike their aspersions casting and bad faith assumption that show no sign of abating. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Believing that doesn't justify you calling their mental health concerns into question. This posting of yours was an absolutely egregious personal attack. Had I seen it in the moment, I would have immediately blocked you. You were grossly out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hammersoft Jolielover I should perhaps have reported it, but I was not feeling well enough to do anything about it, as is perhaps evident from how I wrote. This is not the only occasion. Further back, this user had a discussion with two other users on my own talk page; I told them that they could do as they wished, and asked them to leave my talk page since their constant aggressive posting was triggering an attack. They, M.Bitton being the dominant party, continued despite me informing them that that had indeed caused a panic attack. I can see from my posting, that my writing becomes incoherent, since I was in the middle of an attack. This was traumatic for me, and I have not wished to speak to him ever since. I would not object to him being reported or banned, though I am not informed about what the possibilities are, and I doubted they can be many, since I have little energy to do much myself. --Aciram (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

What's your excuse for continuing to cast aspersions and assuming bad faith (including with passing IPs)? M.Bitton (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I never called their their mental health concerns into question. All I said is that it's not an excuse to keep casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Eurgh, I agree. People behind screens go through a lot of things and just one person not being kind could trigger something. It's rude to insinuate someone is lying. Let's AGF. jolielover♥talk 17:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

(M.Bitton) Your snide sarcasm in the post belies that. Again, it was an egregious personal attack. Trying to dismiss it as in the past, trying to dismiss it that it wasn't repeated, ...trying to dismiss it in ANY way doesn't take away the reality that you were mocking someone's mental health issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I most certainly didn't mock someone's mental health, nor can I ever do such a thing. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The comment speaks for itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That obviously applies to everyone, including those who don't complain. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover; there is a long history. I do not have an active conflict with this user. A couple of years ago, I believe, I had a dispute with this user. The user removed well referenced and contextually relevant information from an article regarding slavery in Islam. After this incident, the very same thing occurred on several different occasions.

Now: when a person removes contextually relevant and well referenced information from several different articles regarding a specific subject, giving "cherry picking" and "out of context" and similar reasons for these removals, it is natural that you are given the impression that this user has an agenda.

In this specific case, the only occasions in which I had anything to do with M.Bitton, is in articles dealing with the subject of slavery in Islam. What can I say? It is difficult to keep a belief in good faith and NPOV, when this hapen again and again. When you notice such a pattern, logic will give you the impression of a bias agenda.

Generally, to have a discussion with a person who may have an agenda, is deeply exhausting. It will eventually lead nowhere. It is not constructive. Nevertheless, a wikipedia editor should participate in such discussions for the good of wikipedia. Otherwise the content of wikipedia will be affected by people with an agenda; I am aware of this. But I can not do this. Why?

I suffer from anxiety disorders and I can not participate in long, outdrawn and agressive discussions, which will often contain attacks, insults and hostility for weeks on end. I admire those who do. But such discussions will give me anxiety attacks, and such can result in self harm. I will strongly add, that the only reason I describe this here; is to explain myself. That is the reason, and the only reason, I write this.

Because of this reason, I have the policy, that when I disagree with another user about a content issue, I will simply let my oponent do as they wish. This is done to avoid a triggering aggressive discussion, particular when I can see what appear to be an agenda in a user. There are not rules in Wikipedia regarding simply letting your oponent having their way in a content dispute, I assume? If not, we have no problem in that regard. On previous occasions, I have always allowed M.Bitton to have his way. In this occasion, I did as well.

In a previous discussion, I openly told M.Bitton, that he triggered an anxiety attack, bowed down to his opinion, and asked him to stop participating in a discussion which him and two other users had on my own talk page, and where I did not participate. I asked them to stop. They chose to continue, showing deep contemt and disregard for my health. I am sure you can understand that I do not see that M.Bitton will have a constructive discussion with me.

This particular issue, is yet again about slavery in Islam. An IP-adress removed the wording "chattel slavery" from an article in which slaves could be sold, bought and owned. I have not reinstated it, and I will not do so either. I accepted the change as soon as I saw that M.Bitton was involved, because experience have shown me, that such a discussion will not be constructive. I do not belive that I have an obligation to speak to M.Bitton, if I simply bow down and accept any edit he wish to do? Well, I accept any edit he wish to do. I consider it necessary for my health. I am willing do to this to avoid speaking to this user. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

when this hapen again and again care to explain why you accused the IP of vandalism and having an agenda? M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Half of these diffs are quite old, and nothing in them is sanctionable, either individually or as a whole. Aciram, I would advise you to avoid using the term apologists, as it could be considered a personal attack, but these diffs don't rise to the level of a formal warning, let alone a block. M.Bitton, even if unintentional, that talk page comment came off as belittling someone's mental health issues, which is highly unacceptable. In the future, don't bring up people's struggles in such a manner. Other than that, I don't see any sanctions coming out of this thread, except maybe an IBAN. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned the old comments because of the recent one (i.e., to show continuation of something that isn't likely to stop). Short of responding in kind (my mental health is important to me too) or reporting it here, what else am I supposed to do? M.Bitton (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd recommend the two of you do a self imposed WP:IBAN, so this doesn't come up again. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The IBAN doesn't address the fact that they keep casting aspersions on me (you'll notice that they have a history of talking about me, rather than to me). M.Bitton (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are annoyed by their comments, and as I said above, calling you a slavery apologist was a personal attack. However, I don't think it reaches the level of instituting a block. I'd recommend an IBAN to prevent further issues, since the incivility seems to only occur when they are in content disputes with you, and your hands aren't exactly clean here either. The IBAN also would address the issue of aspersions, as they would no longer be permitted to mention you anywhere on the site, nor would you be permitted to mention them. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

My hands are clean. There is no justification for their uncalled for attacks in the middle of unrelated discussions. I also never mentioned them as I have no interest in them. The last time that I pinged them about their unjustified revert of a well explained edit (December 2024), they ignored my question. Also, their bad faith assumption is not limited to me. (M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR. Thank you, I will try to avoid using "apologist". For me personally an IBAN would be a relief. I already avoid speaking to him. This user once triggered a panic attack with his agressive posting on my page, and refused to stop even when I informed him that I was indeed having a panic attack. However, it is concerning that in that case, I would not be able to alert anyone if I observe things such as for example bias editing (?). I can not hide, that there is a reason for what is called "aspersions": it is difficult for me to see NPOV for a user who has again and again removed well referenced and contextually relevant information from articles concerning slavery in Islam, in combiation with having described sexual slavery in Islam as benevolent [124]. I have described such incidents here: [125] This genuinly concerns me. I would have reported potential bias long ago, and the only reason I have not, is because I know I am not fit for the long discussion that would take. But someone should, some day; and I have hoped that eventually, I would have what it takes to participate in such a discussion. I am being frank here because I am concerned for these articles. --Aciram (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Casting aspersions seems to come naturally to you.

having descrbed sexual slavery in Islam as benevolent I challenge you to substantiate this nonsense that you're attributing to me. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Good grief. Saying "Casting aspersions seems to come naturally to you" is a personal attack itself. You are commenting on the editor, not on their edits. If you are incapable of making that distinction, you shouldn't be editing here. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and take it to heart. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

This report about casting aspersions is about an editor and them doubling down on it here of all places is something that needs to be highlighted for what it is. M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

So your method of highlighting it is to insult them? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not an insult, it's a fact. Attributing utter nonsense to me in an effort to discredit me is literally a joke. The fact that nobody seems to be bothered by it is frankly shocking. M.Bitton (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

What is shocking is that you don't think belittling someone's mental health is a personal attack. What is shocking is you don't think telling someone that being insulting comes naturally to them is a personal attack. WP:NPA is blatantly clear on this; "Comment on content, not the contributors". Talking about things coming naturally to them is talking about them, not about their contributions. If you persist in insulting people on this project, I will recommend you blocked not so much for the personal insults but for the inability to recognize that you are insulting people and violating WP:NPA. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The first part has already been addressed. The second is rather strange as it tells me that the rules that apply to me don't apply to the others (they can insult me and claim all kind of nonsense about me all day long, and that's fine). M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Insufficiently addressed, yes. As to the second, I am talking about your behavior. You are out of line for saying "Casting aspersions seems to come naturally to you". If you are not capable of seeing that is a personal attack, you probably shouldn't be editing here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I see everything (that's the problem). Anyway, I said what I needed to say, so time for me to move on. M.Bitton (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, nobody is saying that there has been zero misconduct from Aciram. It isn't enough to warrant blocking, but it is there. The difference between their conduct and yours is that Aciram has shown a willingness to change. You, on the other hand, have only doubled down on comments that you have been told were problematic. There's a reason this IBAN is two-way. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

What willingness to change? They are literally doubling down on the aspersions and bad faith assumption on this very board (in fact, they have done nothing else but that). M.Bitton (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the comment where they agreed to avoid calling people apologists. As for the aspersions, that's why this is a two-way ban. The fact that both of you seemingly want to report the other for NPOV violations further underscores the fact that you two will likely never be able to get along in any productive way, and a ban from interacting is necessary. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That's just a single comment out many that they made and keep making (see below). There is no question that they have been assuming bad faith and casting aspersions for a long time. The fact that they are incapable of substantiating their nonsense (even when challenged) is telling. M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I thank those who has shown support. But before this is made, and I can't mention him again, I must once and for all issue a warning.

I believe the editing of User:M.Bitton show a bias agenda to use the rules to remove information about slavery in Islam, and to portray the instition as benevolent. This agenda is indicated by his editing several years back. I notice this, because I have written about the subject for several years, and this is the only occasion when I have encountered him. I have described such incidents here: [126]

To me, this conflict have always been about this agenda. I have genuine concern for it. And I am very sad, and feel guilty, that this discussion may know have rendedered these concerns invalid. I have a genuine belief that these concerns are valid.

If I had reported this when I first noticed it, it may have been taken seriously, and adressed. Now, it will not. And I am very, very sorry, that my behaviour may have made it possible for them to continue for a long time. I should have reported them a long time ago. I am very sorry for wikipedia and for this subject issue, that I did not. --Aciram (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The two of you seem incapable of not responding to the other's actions. That's why this interaction ban is needed. To both you and M.Bitton, my advice is to DROP IT and stop commenting about each other now rather than after the IBAN goes into effect. Neither of you is convincing the other, and both of you are making it worse. Drop it and move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I appologize, and I will now leave the discussion. I will make no further posts. I understand, that because of this discussion, nothing of what I say about M.Bitton, will be taken seriously. We are in conflict; and therefore, what I say will be viewed as bias. I understand this, and I accept this. Before I go, I humbly and respectfully ask you to consider, that the only thing I have ever been concerned about, is the NPOV of the subject. That was the reason I wrote the text above. I understand it can no longer be taken seriously because of the nature if this discussion. I therefore leave now. I will respect any decission you chose to make. I have nothing further to say, and can only be sorry for the effect this has. --Aciram (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

Please indicate support or opposition for a two-way (i.e. both parties subject to) interaction ban between User:Aciram and User:M.Bitton.

Support Given ongoing comments here, I think this is the best option moving forward. I had hoped for a voluntary IBAN that they both kept to, but that's obviously not going to be accepted. Time to put this into place. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support Both of them are productive users, but neither of them can get along civilly. To answer your question, Aciram, neither of you would be allowed to mention each other in any capacity on Wikipedia unless you are reporting a violation of the interaction ban, and you would also not be allowed to revert each other's edits. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support I have worked with both editors, directly and indirectly, and both in my opinion are quality editors. I see comments by both that are not content-focused. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose due to M.Bitton's precipitation of this incident. A one-way ban on M.Bitton might be appropriate especially given how this started: (1) an IP removes "chattel" from articles, not just wrongly but even citing a source in their edit summaries[127][128] which directly contradicts them; (2) Aciram reverts, with some asperity; (3) M.Bitton intervenes to reinstate the IP's edits rather than BRD-style leave the status quo in place pending discussion, and demands sources of Aciram not the IP editor (4) on being criticised by Aciram, M.Bitton launches this ANI thread, bringing up Aciram's comments in January 2025 and April 2024, but not describing how M.Bitton provoked Aciram. NebY (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support Having read all these replies and diffs this seems the best way forward to stop the personal attacks and aspersions and both can continue to edit constructively away from each other. GothicGolem29 03:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation to the topic ban proposal. Discussion about content can be held at the article's talk page.

• I started the ANI because of what they wrote today (after making similar personal remarks previously). The IP's source doesn't contradict what they said, and even if it did, it still wouldn't be reason enough to accuse them of vandalism and having an agenda. I demanded sources for what is unsourced and challenged. I didn't provoke them, it's actually the opposite since my reply to them in April 2024 was in response to their aspersions (unlike them, I moved on, and even ignored the other personal attacks that I only listed above to show that they have been at it for a while, even in discussions in which I'm not involved). M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  You claim The IP's source doesn't contradict what they said. The IP wrote There is no academic source given for claiming it was Chattel slavery ... citing a source which instead says "the Arabian slave, who was now no longer merely a chattel but was also a human being" (my emphasis) and "In what might be called civil matters, the slave was a chattel with no legal powers or rights whatsoever", describes purchase as "by far the most important means for the legal acquisition of new slaves" and discusses the trade in slaves at length. You have edited enough content about slave trading to know that "chattel slavery" is a correct term here – the IP had even presented an immediate source for it – and it is baffling that you preferred to remove it and preciptate this incident. NebY (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for observing this. The definition of Chattel slavery is a type of slavery when a human can be sold, bought and owned. There have been more incidents of this sort. The incident in the same article of december 2024, with a talk page post just above the last, was very similar. There, an IP removed referenced information wrongly claiming that it was not to be found in the source. I was too tired to engage with it. Incidents such as this have formed my opinion in the issue.--Aciram (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Just like I was too tired to respond to your personal attacks (even in discussions in which I'm not even involved). Why stop there? Go all the way back to 2022 (where everyone was tired, just like you were). M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Since you've chosen to ignore Hammersoft's advice above consider this an official, final warning to stop replying to Aciram in this thread. You're digging yourself deeper and if you keep this up you're going to wind up blocked. At this point, you're both much better off dropping the stick and letting the community sort this out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

"no longer merely a chattel but was also a human being" doesn't mean "chattel" (which dehumanises the slave). So no, it's not the correct term, and even if it was, it would still need a source whenever it's mentioned, especially, when challenged. M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It means the slave was a chattel – legally bought, owned and sold – but also recognised as a human being. Whether or to what extent Muslim slavery was dehumanising is an evaluation which has no bearing on the matter. NebY (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a difference between "chattel slavery" (which dehumanises the slaves) and Islamic slavery (where the slave is considered human). M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm collapsing this sub discussion as inappropriate to the topic ban discussion. Take disputes about content to the article's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment May I comment? I am full willing to adjust to such a ban. I already avoid speaking to him as much as possible, and I will accept and follow any rule given here. I have only one question: would it still be possible for me to report him if I should see bias editing? I ask this because I have genuin concern for NPOV. I think lack of NPOV is legitimate to report? I would have done so long ago if I thought I had the strenght to handle the discussion. I did not, and therefore, my observation and assesment of the bias editing has perhaps come out the wrong way, and for that I am sorry. But I do have genuine concern for NPOV. --Aciram (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Likewise (including for violation of NPOV, misrepresenting the sources to push a POV and assuming bad faith with other editors). M.Bitton (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. This concerns me. In my opinion, his editing shows an agenda to remove as much as possible about slavery in Islam and portray the insitition us benevolent. I have described such incidents here: [129] I should have reported him for breaking NPOV long ago. I did not because I lacked trust in my ability to handle a heated discussion. It will therefore be my fault if he indeed has bias and contiue with bias editing, unless someone else report him. I feel as if I have lacked in my duty to wikipedia and the articles I am concerned for, by not reporting him before. I am myself guilty if this POV-concern is not taken seriously. And for that I am sorry and feel helpless. --Aciram (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not too late to report whatever you're claiming. You can start by addressing this. M.Bitton (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I will leave this discussion now. It is sad to think, how different the NPOV issue ([130]) may have been recieved, if it had been put forward in a different discussion than this. --Aciram (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• An interaction ban is an interaction ban, full stop. It is not an interaction ban except for report[ing] him if I should see bias editing. Ibanned editors are not allowed to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• What Bushranger said. We have a lot of editors here, if there are problems with M.Bitton's editing I'm sure someone else will notice. Nil Einne (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have already been given a reply above, and I understand. I accept that any accusation or observation regarding POV from me about this user can not be taken seriously because of the topic of this ANI-discussion. If I had reported POV before this discussion, it would have been taken seriously and adressed, which would have been good for wikipedia. Now, it will not be taken seriously. I accept this, but I can still feel sorry for these circumstances, because they are caused by me, and is my fault. If I had not been a covard because of my anxity problems, I would have reported POV. I did not. I blame myself for this. Hence my comments. I have the respond I need. Thank you.

I am not sure how this will go practially since were both interested in articles of slavery in Islam, but I suppose we will figure it out. I have never "cast aspersions"/expressed concerns on POV, on other occasions than when there have been content disputes on talk pages - and here. And I would not have begun doing so in other occasions either. --Aciram (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

•  Question: what was the purpose of these[131][132] (look at the timestamps) if not to taunt me? Is this comment about me (again) canvassing or am I mistaken? M.Bitton (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I appear to have thanked M.Bitton by mistake. My thank you was directed toward his oponent in the discussion, who shares my opinion that M.Bitton have removed the term "chattel slavery" from an Islamic slavery article unjustly. This is the very same issue that caused M.Bitton to report me to ANI and start this discussion. My concern is now raised by another user on the talk page of the article, who agrees with me. I gave that person a thank you because they are adressing an issue of bias that I will soon no longer be able to adress. I appologize for thanking M.Bitton by mistake: I have no interest in taunting people. I have always only been interested in the NPOV issue, and I was relieved to see that others may adress it as well now. It was incidents like these that gave me the impression of biases and disregard for NPOV regarding slavery in Islam, and of POV pushing to make Islamic slavery sound benevolent. This was always of concern for me.--Aciram (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment I'm not too worried about the content (the utter disregard for the NPOV policy will be dealt with once the relevant projects are notified of the issue). All I want is a reassurance that the taunting (including talking about me in a disparaging way) will cease. M.Bitton (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Per what others have said a two way IBAN will prevent them mentioning you at all(as it will with you as well) so if that proposal passes them mentioning you will cease or they will be breaching it. GothicGolem29 15:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment M.Bitton appears to belive that my mission in life is to have an evil agenda to taunt him. No, my mission in Wikipedia is to write about history from a NPOV. M.Bitton had consistently done everything he can to make Islamic slavery sound benevolent and remove any information contrary to it by calling it "cherry picking". This have always concerned me greatly.

He has already descrived sexual slavery in Islam as benevolent, because the sex slaves of Muslim rulers lived in luxury. Now, he wishes to remove that fact that slavery in Islamic countries was chattel slavery. Chattel slavery was a type of slavery in which humans can be sold, bought and owned. It is for example acknowledged that Roman slavery was chattel slavery. It is deeply painful to see such an POV agenda be pushed, and know that I will be unable to adress this.

The only reason I have not reported this is because I am too mentally ill to handle such a hostile discussion. To see such a POV be pushed on wiki, and be unable to do anything about it is painful, when one has worked on wikipedia so long as I have, and I am genuinly saddened when I see it.

I should stop reading this discussion now. I don't understand why there should be such hostility. I have never been interested in M.Bitton as a person. I am deeply concerned about M.Bitton's agenda to make Islamic slavery sound benevolent. This concern is genuine. To potentially see it happening, is heart breaking. And I see know, that the best I can do for my health is to no longer observe this discussion and take all articles concerning slavery in Islam of my watch list.

Other users may not have the interest to adress the issue, because people in general are mainly focused on the Atlantic slave trade and slavery in the US, and rarely show interest in Islamic slavery. Therefore, I believe that there will be a suscesful POV-push by M.Bitton in the subject due to a lack of interest in the issue from other users. There will be nothing I can do, and that is deeply concerning. This is sad for the Wikipedia project, and it it hapens I will have no will to work on it anymore. As you can see from my writing, I am not mentally well, and I aknowledge I am not, and I may not always phrase myself well, but my concern is genuine and my concern is of NPOV. I don't now how M.Bitton justifies this to himself, but I can only say this makes me so deeply saddened and worried. --Aciram (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aciram: If you two are banned from interacting, other users (such as the people who agreed with you in that talk page thread) would still be able to enforce NPOV. I would recommend that you and M.Bitton both stop making new comments in this thread unless specifically asked a question, since both of you are entering into bludgeoning territory. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

They've already both been advised above. They can't seem to stop doing it. This is why the IBAN is necessary. I've seen this pattern before from others; the belief that if they make one more post, one more plea, one more diff, that it will somehow sway the day and everything will come out roses and butterflies for them. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, yes. It is natural human behaviour to defend oneself when you see accusations. It is not easy not to post, when you read that. I am not fit for Wikipedia to begin with, and I should not have been involved in editing. I am too fragile for it, and I can not behave as a mature adult. All this is very depressing. I hope I have the character to stay away now. And I dont think that if I "make one more post, one more plea, one more diff, that it will somehow sway the day and everything will come out roses and butterflies for them". As you can see above, I take for granted, that there will be an IBAN, and I am worried and sad what that will lead to. I do not think I can say anything to prevent it. I posted above because I am ill and lack self control. I should discontinue my account. I do not belive, that I am suited to be a wikipedia contributor. Please to whatever you wish. If you wish to block my account, then perhaps that would be best. I do not consider myself suitable to work here. That should be evident from everything above. --Aciram (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting you are not suitable for editing here. It is evident that you and M.Bitton interacting is not good for the project. You are most welcome to continue to edit the project, but commenting in response to or about M.Bitton is not a good idea. The best strength someone can have in this situation is something you've already said you wanted to do; turn away from them. It's not hard. Just don't respond to them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Dpakman

Dpakman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has made many edits to David B. Pakman, is sharing an account, or posting the work of another as their own, or is not being honest about their editing, as made clear at User talk:Dpakman#September 2025.

They have variously claimed:

1. not to be compensated for their edits [133]
2. to have been paid by the subject's business to edit on behalf of the subject [134]
3. to be the article subject [135]

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

P-blocked them from David B. Pakman indefinitely since they don't edit regularly enough for a time-limited block to work. Star Mississippi 18:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That last one raises an eyebrow. the page is autobiographical in nature...the page was created and written and edited by someone with the same same [sic] as me but we are different people. Assuming they meant to say "same name" - we're to believe User:Dpakman91, who created the article David B. Pakman and User:Dpakman, who was editing the article within 24 hours of its creation, are different people. (Well, were, since Dpakman91 hasn't edited since 2013.) It's not entirely unbelievable, as David Pakman and David B. Pakman are different people, and Dpakman91 has edited both, but...hm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

just noting they've requested an unblock which does not clarify any of the above Star Mississippi 12:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

...but does accuse me of threatening them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

And was also posted while WP:LOUTSOCKing, apparently. WP:AGF that they simply forgot to log in, but I've added a pblock to 32.221.30.198 for two weeks from David B. Pakman. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Notability looks questionable. The bio cites a whole slew of primary-source stuff etc, but nothing that looks like independent in-depth coverage of the man himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

User:6485Editor needs talk page editing access removed

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

---

Recently blocked 6485Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding 200k+ of nonsense to their talk page. Adakiko (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I would just leave them alone and let them dig their own WP:HOLES, it's not really hurting anything plus they've seemed to calm down. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

TPA revoked for 31 hours. jp×g🗯️ 08:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG: Did you mean to reduce the overall block time? They were originally blocked for 72 hours, and only ~4 hours had elapsed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm just a goddamn imbecile. Fixed. jp×g🗯️ 09:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I see no indication they would contribute constructively after the block ends, see for example [136], [137] and [138]. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with ChildrenWillListen. Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 15:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC).

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

Cut-and-paste move

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

---

An editor active in the area of typhoons was reminded three times of WP:Move ([139], [140], [141]) before a cut-and-paste move ([142], [143], [144]; plus some earlier attempts: [145], [146]) from an older, original entry ([147]) in the draft namespace to a relatively later fork ([148]; the fork went on to be moved from the draft into the main article namespace without going through the usual submission review process ([149], [150])). Then there were attempts to speedy the original draft ([151], [152]). What can now be done to revert such a cut-and-paste move and get things back on track? Thanks. 203.145.95.215 (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

At the time of writing the message above the older, original draft was guillotined ([153], [154]). 203.145.95.215 (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

My bad I had not seen this and had missed the ongoing issues of Typhoon Matmo (2025) and Draft:Tropical Storm Matmo 2025. I've undeleted the draft again to allow investigation. KylieTastic (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Note also Tamzin's AN post on the same issue Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Can_someone_figure_out_what_is_going_on_with_these_tropical_storm_drafts? KylieTastic (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, KylieTastic. 203.145.95.215 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

(Is this thread being overlooked?) 203.145.95.215 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Please delete this draft

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

---

Special:Contributions/Alingdes created a draft in their only contribution, this one draft is egregious because I not only find it to be unnecessary, but I also find it disgusting and kinda gross. Can an admin speedy delete the draft please. I also don't want to mention the name of the draft because I find it inappropriate. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I tagged the draft for speedy deletion and left them a warning that they will be blocked if they make another draft like that. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I found this out while patrolling the new users log. I patrol the log to check for vandalism or other suspicious activity. And I found that edit. Which is why I came here to report it. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft deleted. Hopefully that's their last demonstration of editing like that. If not, please re-report. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Ban-evading proxy IP causing disruptions across typhoon articles

I’m bringing this here to hopefully solve this issue once and for all.

Since August, there’s been a proxy-blocked IP at 218.250.114.83 (u t c m l) (more information on their behavior can be found there at that discussion) causing numerous disruptions on many typhoon-related articles, specifically 2024 Pacific typhoon season and 2025 Pacific typhoon season-related, changing date formats against consensus from MDY to DMY and inserting British English language despite repeatedly being reverted. They also seem to attempt to blend in using bureaucratic language and fake edit summaries as well. Since then after being blocked by Materialscientist, the IP in question has began docking through numerous proxies in an attempt to continue their disruptions, most notably at Typhoon Ragasa recently where I had to repeatedly revert them until they were blocked and I had to explain on the talk page and the page itself had to be protected due to the disruptive editing (only for the IPs to immediately begin again once it expired). Now, they’re causing disruption again with the same stuff for Typhoon Matmo (2025) (including repeatedly re-creating a now-useless draft at Draft:Tropical Storm Matmo 2025 which is outdated by several factors) and Draft:Tropical Storm Halong (2025). Some users (most notably have attempted to negotiate with these IPs, which, in my opinion, just feeds the ego of the IPs, and these edits to the pages fall under WP:BMB.

I am hoping administration can take of this and the IPs so that this disruption can finally end because I am tired of reverting them. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: I've been trying to make heads or tails of this Matmo mess for almost a day now, and I'll say, the IP is the only person involved whose behavior has seemed to mostly comply with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. And to reiterate, no policy prevents an editor from continuing to edit after their proxy is blocked, and WP:NOP actually calls this out as explicitly allowed. I'm open to being convinced they're part of the problem here, but so far you haven't presented any evidence. Could you please show diffs of what the IP's been doing that is disruptive? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: See here when the new IP in question tried to restore the DMY format despite twice reverted by @EmperorChesser: to the regular MDY format. The IP’s edit summaries are the same as previous IP’s that were blocked due to disruption at Ragasa. Other users have been made aware of the sock nature which include @Borgenland: and @Sam Sailor: (who I probably should’ve pinged first as they appear to have more knowledge of this specific socking/proxy-IP case. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I have quickly visited the edit history of Ragasa.[155] It was exactly MarioProtIV, Sam Sailor, Borgenland (along with e.g. CleveAuxil) who disrupted the page after it attained article status following a proper draft review, by (a) enforcing US spellings and MDY date formats and (b) ignoring (i) the fact that just the opposite of these were followed in the draft before they stepped in and (ii) Retain and Dateret. MarioProtIV in particular forced his/her way by ignoring intermediate edits multiple times. (As for the Halong draft[156] it is more than clear which variety of English and date format were first established but again there are editors who ignored this.) 203.145.95.215 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This is quite the false allegation. The page was created by Vida0007 which used MDY format, which actually goes against what you are claiming. This was exactly what led to the block because of the multiple attempts at forcing a DMY conversion despite being told over and over again that was against consensus. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

No, the IP appears to be likewise correct that the first non-stub version of Typhoon Ragasa was their DMY version. What I'm starting to get the impression of here is that there is a systemic issue in the typhoon topic area with editors not understanding how ENGVAR and DATEVAR work. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

As far as I’m concerned here, the moment IP was confirmed to have been a sock reverting them was necessary per WP:BANREVERT. And since they appeared to be IP hopping I assumed there was a plot on their part to rig consensus against the regular editors. Borgenland (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

No one has shown any evidence that the IP is a sock. The only blocks against their past IPs have been for the IPs being proxies, which explicitly as a matter of policy does not prevent a user from editing under other IPs. Similarly no one has shown any evidence that they've ever pretended multiple of their IPs are different people. These are the sorts of details that editors are expected to sort out before they go reverting people under BANREVERT, not after. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think those are the diffs you meant to link, but, looking at all of Special:PageHistory/Draft:Tropical Storm Halong (2025), I see that EmperorChesser created a draft with no prose, the IP added prose using DMY dates and British English, and EmperorChesser than added MDY and AmEng tags in violation of MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATEVAR—which say the first non-stub version (i.e. the IP's) is controlling—with the hostile edit summary Are you kidding me? Stop deleting or modifying this. The IP then made a reasonable revert, correctly citing the applicable policies, which you incorrectly reverted as ban evasion even though they are not subject to any active blocks for misconduct. You and EmperorChesser than both made further reverts in violation of ENGVAR and DATEVAR, and falsely alleging ban evasion. The IP does get some blame for edit-warring, but you two were also both edit-warring, and unlike the IP you were doing so to remove constructive, policy-compliant edits. If this is the extent of your evidence, I do see a potential need for sanctions here, but it's not against the IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Since all this edit warring, and persistent vandalizing has been going on in the articles I requested semi-protection for them. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The entire Pacific typhoon season group uses MDY format. The IP was told multiple times that wa against the consensus, and the discussion at Materialscientist’s talk showcases the exact patterns that started in August. Once the master IP was blocked, they began socking, and it is extremely WP:DUCK that it has continued so. The IP also seems to be engaging in some sort of WP:BOOMERANG/WP:DEFLECT in attempt to make the other editors in the WPTC WikiProject look bad who are just trying to keep the MDY consensus for the PTY range stable. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, you and the IP need to sort things out on the page's talk page. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring for more information. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The entire Pacific typhoon season group uses MDY format. Which may be a reason that an article would form consensus to use MDY, but is not an exception to DATEVAR, and certainly not an exception to WP:EW. And if you refer to this behavior as socking again, after having it repeatedly explained to you that it is not sockpuppetry to edit after having a previous IP proxy-blocked, I am going to block you for personal attacks. "Sockpuppet" isn't a word you can just throw around to discredit an opponent. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright so maybe I went overboard with that phrasing so I’ll cool it with that, I’m just a bit frustrated this is an issue we’re having with at all because it’s very similar behavior and am just trying to keep the consensus already built in. But, my main point to that was this is an issue that, even if it’s multiple different users from around the HK area or so, have been pushing this kind of formatting change against consensus for a while since the issues began on Typhoon Co-may in August. A change in date format would require a long discussion from the WikiProject on changing consensus considering that would impact hundreds if not thousands of Pacific typhoon pages as those all use MDY, just so you’re aware of the scope this entails. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Beyond the general applicability of MOS:DATETIES (which in the context of typhoons will usually either be irrelevant or cut in favor of DMY, except for typhoons primarily affecting Hawaii), date format is decided at the article level, not at the topic or wikiproject level. WPTC is subject to the same rules as the rest of Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Given that earlier part of edit history of Typhoon Ragasa when it was still in the draft space and before it entered the mainspace I would seriously doubt if there existed any broad and general consensus of mdy over dmy. Quite some editors might perhaps be indifferent though. The storm was anticipated to hit Hong Kong and the periphery badly and dmy is followed there. As for the Philippines dmy is used by the Pagasa and most part of the (national) government there, and, generally, in Tagalog. 203.145.95.215 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: As an aside, by definition, a typhoon can never affect Hawaii, as typhoons only occur west of the International Date Line. In the Central Pacific Basin, they're called hurricanes. Which only reinforces your point! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Interesting. There don't seem to be many storms which impact Guam and/or the CNMI (and/or any of the CFA countries) and not elsewhere. (By the way does the boundary follow the IDL or the 180° meridian?) 203.145.95.215 (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@203.145.95.215: Pretty sure it's 180°, since that's the boundary between the areas of responsibility of the Joint Typhoon Warning Center and the Central Pacific Hurricane Center. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Ahh. I'd always thought it's the IDL. Having it at 180° would be like putting the westernmost (or easternmost, by definition?) Aleutian islands and probably some other island groups in another basin with the main part of those islands, and vice versa. 203.145.95.215 (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you missed my note below. The WikiProject cannot mandate a particular style. It can encourage a style. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of this, and I am trying to encourage that MDY format (even though I was pushing it a little too much) The project, as much as I can remember, has used MDY because of the affiliation with the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, an American-run office in Guam, which is a U.S. territory (hence the MDY), and up until 1993 was the primary office responsible for the storms over there. Afterwards, the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) in Tokyo(?) became the RSMC and isn’t a U.S. territory. The JTWC and Guam is likely why MDY has been adopted for the West Pacific, while in other basins besides Atlantic/Epac (which use MDY bc of NHC being U.S.), DMY is used because of no U.S. territories being involved there. As I’ve said, this would require a project-wide discussion on changing this. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

If you’d like to me to open a discussion with the WikiProject on changing the Pacific typhoon date format, then I can do that if it brings this mess to an end. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Let me be clear: the mess was caused by Wikiproject members imposing their preferences on other editors. You cannot do that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

However, aligning the Wikiproject recommendations with the office changes you described would reduce future friction with non-project contributors. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ve opened the discussion and we’ll hash it out there. I’m not sure if this ANI report could tentatively be called “resolved” for now but at least we’re going in the right direction I think. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I hope so! I've gone ahead and unprotected Typhoon Matmo (2025), since it seems the basis for the protection (supposed disruptive editing or socking by the IP) was incorrect and the protecting admin has (understandably) washed their hands of this mess. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Editing an article to change DMY to MDY and changing the English variety cannot be justified by what a Wikiproject wants. Yes, you can, within the project, discuss and develop recommendations, but you cannot change what is written by the original author just because the project doesn't like it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Please note this about Wikipedia projects: WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. There is no special WP:MOS exception for these articles, unless you promulgate a broadly-based consensus effort that is not limited to participation by project members. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

If I were cynical I would say a weather event-focused HK IP jumping ranges sounds a lot like IPhonehurricane95, but it could be a coincidence. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• This seems like a content dispute that is turning into a 'conduct' dispute just because a WikiProject is so zealous to enforce their WP:LOCALCON of mdy over WP:MOS which advises dmy 37.186.32.138 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

WT:WEATHER WP:BADRFC?

MarioProtIV has started a RfC. However, I'm concerned that it's a WP:BADRFC. Again, we have the Wikiproject members imposing their preferences on other editors problem that rsjaffe said we can't have. The new WikiProject-level RfC is going against Tamzin's finding that date format is decided at the article level, not at the topic or wikiproject level. 173.206.37.177 (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. @MarioProtIV: If my and Rsjaffe's comments above were unclear on this, to be clear: WP:WEATHER cannot change the Pacific typhoon date format from MDY to DMY, because WP:WEATHER does not control the Pacific typhoon date format in the first place. Y'all are welcome to change your recommended format, but that is neither necessary nor sufficient to stop the kind of edit-warring that y'all were engaging in here. For that, we simply need awareness: Project members need to understand that date format is decided at an article-by-article level, where the first consideration is MOS:DATETIES and the second is whatever format was used in the first non-stub version, and that WikiProject guidance does not let them violate sitewide rules on changing date formats. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for applying Datevar

219.79.142.128 has been blocked for applying Datevar to Typhoon Hato. They're charged for not explaining in the edit summary even after they left a talk page message almost a day before their edits and referred to that talk page message and Datevar explicitly in the edit summary. How could something like this happen? 203.145.95.215 (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Sigh, when is someone going to make a template that dynamically formats dates and English variants based on user preferences so that everyone can see their preferred variant? 216.126.35.228 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I actually attempted to create a user script to solve that problem, but it's difficult and I can't rely just on myself. EmperorChesser 13:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This was a thing once upon a time, and in the end it triggered an Arbcom case. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

We actually used to link dates in articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait till you see where we used to put nav templates...--tony 18:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

To address the limitation of only applying to logged in users, code could be added at reverse proxy/caching sever level to take geolocation into account and use the most common date/eng var for that location by default when user preferences aren't available. That's still not perfect, but close and way better than all of the edit warring and blocks that otherwise occur. 216.126.35.228 (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

What about something like an add-on or an extension at the browser level? [157] Or the browser's own settings? 203.145.95.215 (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This could be at Wikipedia:Administrative action review? 37.186.32.138 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I've notified the blocking admin, discospinster, of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be too far a long shot? 203.145.95.215 (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Discospinster: please take note of WP:ADMINACCT. A block you placed has been questioned on very reasonable grounds, you have been explicitly notified about this ANI discussion, but you have edited elsewhere without responding here. Fram (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Out of policy protection at Antechinus

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

---

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

I'm very surprised that nobody seems to care to apply a protection here that is actually in line with policy. Does policy matter any more, or have we thrown WP:PP to the bin? 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Please show where you discussed this matter with the admin in question prior to bringing this to WP:ANI. Please also show where you obtained consensus for your change instead of just edit-warring to keep your preferred version. --Yamla (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Indef protection was probably overkill but IP was clearly edit warring. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Neither ECP nor indef are covered by policy for this scenario. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

You should talk with the admin first. Then, if dissatisfied with the outcome, the best place for filing a request for administrative action review if you believe the action was not supported by policy is, fittingly, Wikipedia:Administrative action review. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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

user:Cremastra's transphobic remarks at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_September_23#Biological_woman/man

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

---

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

special:diff/1314713706:

sex is a genetic and biological feature that is immutable. If you have two X chromosomes, you're "female". If you have a Y chromosome, you're "male" ... you could have a man who has two X chromosomes or a man with a Y and an X. However, to avoid confusion, it is convenient to use terms that note that the first man is biologically female and the second biologically male. A woman who has two X chromosomes is also biologically female.

Because these parts of the comment seemed like an obvious case of grossly incivil transphobia (misgendering is a very serious civility offense, and honestly a borderline personal attack; no trans women/men here will be happy about anyone calling them male/female), I redacted them as such, but user:Rusalkii restored them. Please confirm my redactions. Sapphaline (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Whilst it's perfectly okay to disagree with Cremastra's remarks, they are pretty much the commonly accepted definition of biological sex and do not look like they were intended as a transphobic slur. I don't see any reason for redaction and I thunk rusalkii made the right decision here. CoconutOctopus talk 09:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I also don't think this is quite at AN/I level and should have been discussed on the relevant users' talk pages first. CoconutOctopus talk 09:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

None of this appears to be a slur or transphobic in anyway. @Cremastra even goes out of their way to explain their reasoning with a pretty good framework on sex and gender. I see that you're kind of new here @Sapphaline so as a reminder we assume WP:GOODFAITH here. Going forward it's better to leave a note on someone's talk page and work things out. Dr vulpes (Talk) 10:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

It does seem to be a non-response to the nom, a person’s sex is determined by a number of factors is true and most of these factors (e.g. hormonal balance, gamete production, secondary sex characteristics) are mutable. To focus on the one factor that isn't mutable, and is largely inconsequential beyond a certain point in ones development, raises an eyebrow at least. I don't think it needs to be redacted though, it's unfortunately a common conception of biological sex. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

One might also wonder what a non-biological man would be. A robot? Pinocchio? A miserable little pile of secrets? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree with CoconutOctopus and Dr vulpes. I don't actually agree with Cremastra's definition of sex (per REAL_MOUSE_IRL), but it's a fairly common one, and by no means inherently transphobic. It's going to be a pretty tough sell to convince me that any definition of sex and gender containing the sentence "you could have a man who has two X chromosomes or a man with a Y and an X" is transphobic (noting that, based on the elided text, that is meant to be a reference to trans people, not just intersex people). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I will also note that Sapphaline's latest post on their talk page was a warning about not editing others comments. They would do well to heed that warning. Thepharoah17 (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

---

The problem here isn't the definition (even if it's flawed), but gender essentialism (sex is a genetic and biological feature that is immutable).

If someone fails to see how that's transphobic, then I guess I can't convince them. Sapphaline (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I really don't see how talking about biological sex as explicitly distinct from gender could be gender essentialism. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The issue here is the failure to assume good faith. Whilst like Tamzin I agree that it is an incorrect understanding of sex, it nevertheless is one that is very commonly accepted by people across the spectrum and certainly isn't proof of transphobic intent. CoconutOctopus talk 11:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Just noting the reverted self-close was:

There's no consensus about Cremastra's comment being transphobic. Sapphaline (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about gender essentialism; on the contrary, I'm inclined to believe that gender is socially constructed, but it's not something I spend too much time thinking about. My comment referred to the sex/gender distinction, particularly in relation to trans people, which is more or less what the RfD is about. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 12:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• I would rather suggest a WP:BOOMERANGing here. Calling someone transphobic when that person hasn't been transphobic is needlessly casting aspersions against a valuable editor. Personal attacks shouldn't be accepted. 2804:388:4117:15D4:1:0:AF47:2E41 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Sapphaline acknowledged her error, further escalation doesn't seem productive. Schazjmd (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  They didn't. They just stated “no consensus”, that is, people don't agree with me—and that's it—no excuses, no “I was wrong”. That's the same as nothing. Obvious abuse of public space. 2804:388:4117:15D4:1:0:AF47:2E41 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Read the edit summary, she literally said "I was wrong". REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 15:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Bhj867: A recent history of accusations, personal attacks, and disruptive editing

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

---

Users involved

• Bhj867 (talk · contribs)
• Wikishovel (talk · contribs)
• EditorShane3456 (talk · contribs)

Main Discussion

Diff of Bhj calling wikishovel a rival user (in the edit summary) and blanking the AFD

Diff of Bhj putting my own warning to them on my talk page

Diff accusing me of being a SOCKPUPPET of Wikishovel

edit war 1

edit war 2

Me and Wikishovel have been repeatedly trying to tell this editor that they dont own an article, and they also has a case of icanthearyoutitosis. At the recent and open AFD on one of their pages, they blanked it and I reverted it. The article is just complete fancruft written promotionally and fails so many of our policies yet they are still fighting us about how they precieve the policies. And when I warned them, he copied the source code and put the warning on my talk page. Wikishovel' s discussion on Talk:Bren.d.o was removed by the editor in question, which became an entire edit war. They said that me and Wikishovel were the same person, which we aren't. They are also calling Wikishovel a rival user and a person out for revenge per an afd diff below. I am technically WP:INVOLVED per these diffs:

Diff 1.

Diff 2.

I am proposing a Indef block for Bhj867 for being highly WP:UNCIVIL, a WP:NOTHERE editor, someone who is falsely accusing two other of sockpuppetry, having a suspected undisclosed COI with Alpha Magazines and Bren.d.o. I would like to see what Wikishovel would support in this situation as this has delved into a 2 v 1, Me and Wikishovel against a brick wall. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I've collapsed the LLM generated comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Magazines and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bren.d.o. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 13:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. and there goes a possible LLM wall of text below this message shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikishovel’s criticisms misrepresent both the sourcing and editorial integrity of the affected articles. Each of the concerns he raised has either been addressed or is based on a misapplication of policy. The recent tagging and deletion proposals demonstrate a lack of collaboration and appear motivated by a prior personal dispute rather than genuine editorial improvement. 1. Claim: The subjects are non-notable or “WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT.” The Bren.d.o and Alpha Magazines articles are supported by independent, verifiable coverage in outlets such as Forbes, Black PR Wire, PR Underground, The Insider Weekly, and Alpha Magazine itself (a registered media publication with an identifiable editorial board). Under WP:ENT and WP:NMUSIC, notability is established through charting releases, media coverage, and verified digital distribution. Both topics meet these standards, and dismissing them as “VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT” constitutes editorial bad faith rather than constructive discussion.. 2. Claim: The sourcing is self-published or unreliable. Where primary or promotional references were used, they have been supplemented with independent, reliable sources per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:RS. Publications like Forbes (Rowley, 2020) and Black PR Wire are recognized for editorial oversight and fact-checking. References to iTunes chart data and streaming platforms are verifiable and in line with existing biographies of musicians of comparable standing. The current sourcing meets BLP and reliability standards. 3. Claim: Cleanup or deletion templates are justified. The repeated use of multiple templates without initiating Talk-page discussion violates WP:BRD and WP:DISPUTETAG. Drive-by templating without explanation is not constructive and does not improve article quality. Wikishovel has not participated in any substantive Talk-page dialogue nor offered assistance in resolving the supposed issues. This conduct disrupts normal editorial collaboration. 4. Claim: Draft duplication or merge requests were necessary. The draft version that Wikishovel targeted predates the finalized, properly sourced main article. Under WP:G7 (speedy deletion at author’s request), redundant or outdated drafts should be deleted, not merged into live pages. The current articles incorporate corrected sources and formatting, rendering any merge unnecessary. 5. Claim: Personal conduct is irrelevant to content disputes. While content should take precedence, WP:BEHAVIOR and WP:HARASSMENT policies apply when editing behavior becomes retaliatory. Following a prior disagreement, Wikishovel has repeatedly targeted pages created or maintained by the same editor, including user-space edits. This pattern constitutes WP:REVENGE editing and undermines a collegial environment. Independent third-party coverage confirms subject notability. Reliable sourcing now satisfies WP:RS and WP:BLP requirements. Drive-by templating occurred without collaborative engagement. Behavioral evidence suggests personal retaliation rather than good-faith editing. Given the pattern of bad-faith tagging and disruptive behavior, I request that administrators consider an interaction ban or formal warning to prevent further targeted interference. I believe user Wikishovel has engaged in bad-faith editing and revenge-driven templating following a prior disagreement on his user talk page. Since that interaction, he has repeatedly added cleanup and deletion templates to multiple articles I’ve created or edited — including Alpha Magazines and Bren.d.o — as well as my personal user page. The pattern of behavior suggests retaliation, not genuine editorial concern. Prior to his involvement, the draft already contained incomplete sourcing, which I have since corrected on the main article. Instead of collaborating or offering constructive feedback, Wikishovel has continued applying excessive tags and micro-critiques that do not reflect a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. His recent comments, such as labeling musician biographies as “WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT,” are dismissive and appear targeted. This conduct violates Wikipedia’s expectations for civility and collaborative editing. To clarify: Revenge editing: His actions appear motivated by a personal grudge after being asked to moderate tone on his own user page. Drive-by templating: He has placed deletion and maintenance templates without meaningful contribution to resolving them. Lack of good faith: No collaborative effort has been made to improve or discuss the issues on the relevant Talk pages. Shane and Wikishovel are engaging in Wikipedia:Wikibullying and being WP:UNCIVIL . I am continuing to clean up and improve the affected articles. However, I request administrative review of Wikishovel’s conduct and, if necessary, a topic or interaction ban to prevent further disruption to my work on these pages.

Bhj867 (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

So following Wikipedia policies to the book counts as WP:Wikibullying to you? shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC

You and wikishovel are not following the Wikipedia policies yourself by being rude and engaging in an edit war. So you're definitely not one to make that judgement.Bhj867 (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

We aren't being rude? we are just trying to stop this disruptive editing you are doing right now, if we were out to get you than that would be a issue shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

User:EditorShane3456, stop yelling please. If you want admins to look at this, back off. And did you add "DO NOT REMOVE THIS" to a standard ANI notification? Don't do that please. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

sorry its just that this editor removed my warning message so I added that as a warning shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

If you don't know what editors are allowed to remove such warnings then you shouldn't be throwing policy at them in an ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikishovel engaged in the UNCIVIL disruptive editing first by demanding I do things and targeting all of my articles for deletion without conducting any constructive editing himself, like he is my boss and then you joined in like a bully. Then you both are CURRENTLY engaging with me in an editing war on each other's user pages. Nobody is innocent here. 13:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC) Bhj867 (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• It seems pretty clear to me that Bhj is here to promote one thing only. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  I just want my fair shake at the article deletion dispute on Alpha Magazines without Shane and Wikishovels input whom imo are biased due to our initial interactions, and those two seem to know each other the way they were conversing under Wikishovels userpage. If a bunch of other users come in and want the page deleted, then I'll let the page go. But adding additional disputes to other pages I've edited out of retaliation is just unfair.Bhj867 (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• My turn. While doing NPP, I did some cleanup work on Alpha Magazines: [158]. After the usual WP:BEFORE, I nominated it for deletion at AFD. There was more than a whiff of coatrack about it, so I looked first at Deborah Cox, then at Bren.d.o, and concluded yes, looks like coatrack for Bren.d.o by same editor on same day. Tried to request a history merge of the declined Draft:Bren.d.o, which was copied and pasted to Bren.d.o by Bhj867 then edited further. Cleaned Bren.d.o up a bit, fixed broken references, tagged dead links and failed verification etc. Bhj867 then woke up, got upset, removed templates, and stonewalled the COI discussion at Talk:Bren.d.o. So after another WP:BEFORE search, I nominated that one for AFD as well. Bhj867 then blanked the talk page COI tag discussion twice. Reverting vandalism twice isn't an edit war. They told me not to communicate with them, then began posting heavily at my user talk, mostly mirror accusations of COI and attempts at drive-by mirror template warnings. EditorShane3456 tried to get them to stop, and we were accused of sockpuppetry and all sorts. Over to you. Wikishovel (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• You wanted the imo flimsy Alpha Magazine deletion request so badly. We are here to get the admins opinion, which I've told you before, you're not. Let him and the users that will review the deletion request do their job. Thanks. Bhj867 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I've been accused of edit warring here at the admin's notice board, and am expected to respond to that here. Wikishovel (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Due to repeated borderline personal attacks, edit warring, and blatant self-promo, I have indeffed User:Bhj867 as WP:NOTHERE. CoconutOctopus talk 14:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

User:NoraFrost and use of LLMs/WP:CIR

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

---

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

I have just speedy-deleted User:NoraFrost's 3rd-time recreation of a page about Friedrich Graf V. Luxburg zu Carolath-Beuthen for the same LLM-use issues that led to the previous two deletions of articles on the same BLP subject. They have also created other articles using distinct signs of LLMs that were speedied. They already have a warning on their talk page. I think a WP:NOTHERE indef block is in order but I want to make sure I'm following the process properly before I do it. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Go ahead. Being an SPA may be okay, but repeatedly recreating the same AI-generated crap over and over, against advisement, is not: They are wasting the time and energies of Volunteers. Probably NOTHERE; certainly NOTLISTENING, and I can't be the only one to smell either an obsequious COI or a PAID gig. Whatever, they are not a net positive to the project. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Just checked the Friedrich Graf V. Luxburg article sources - I'm sure you've already done this, just documenting here. Of the 6 distinct sources, 2 have a valid link, 3 have a dead link, and the last is an ISBN with an invalid checksum. If this is their 3rd attempt at the same article then does feel WP:NOTHERE NicheSports (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• So ordered: NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Seems we double-blocked them. I assume that has no negative consequences? FOARP (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for review of user's conduct

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

---

The user is promoting hate and terrorism by using false information. Please refer the to page mentioned at the bottom. The user keeps changing the info on that page without providing any sources . The sources mentioned on that page are sources that I put there when I updated the page with the correct info. He has changed the pages content couple of times after that incident, but has not changed any of the sources. {{https://ps.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%86:%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87_%D8%B2%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86_%D9%BE%D9%BC%D8%A7%D9%86#%7CShah Zaman Pathan}} {{https://ps.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A_%D9%85%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A}} Sameer788 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

We can't do nothing with regard to what happens at the Pashto Wikipedia. Lectonar (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

GustavoCza at Coldplay and related

I'd like to highlight the recent behaviour of GustavoCza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the Coldplay article, which continues a long pattern of combative, unhelpful and, honestly, immature conduct when it comes to all things Coldplay (see Talk:Coldplay/Archive 4 and Talk:Music of the Spheres World Tour/Archive 1#WP:NPOV and length issues for older examples); this is WP:OWN down to a tee. They've well and truly exceeded WP:3RR (I'd say at least five in the last 24 hours; see history) and are ignoring the current attempt at dispute resolution (just as they have here as well); I just left a 3RR warning, but considering this is a long pattern of behaviour and they're an experienced enough editor to know better, I've decided to report anyway. They should at least face a short block for edit warring, but I think that a longer topic ban of sorts is warranted, as this has gone on for long enough; this isn't to take away from the genuinely good contributions that they've made to that WikiProject, but the way that they've conducted themselves along the way – whether fully or partially reverting anything that doesn't make sense to them, avoiding most discussions (or relenting only after reverting several times first) and spitting the dummy when things don't go their way or their conduct is called out (see user talk and archives, in addition to above) – has become too much to ignore and made it genuinely difficult for many editors to work collaboratively with them. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@4TheWynne Not sure, but you may want to move this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. But ignore me if that's not needed. Popcornfud (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this is more of an issue with ownership and refusal to discuss than 3RR, so ANI is the more appropriate venue. As for the actual issue, the refusal to engage on the talk page is concerning, but I'd like to wait for Gustavo's response in this thread before making any judgements. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The so-called combative conduct comes from users such as 4TheWynne constantly belittling me or talking in condescending manner. I won't say they meant to do that, but that is certainly how it feels, so assuming the worst became a tendency. In fact, not that I'm seeking anyone's approval, but this report might be the first time in all these years that 4TheWynne acknowledged I made good contributions. I'm very meticulous with Coldplay pages and many of them spend weeks without significant editing from other users, which also adds into why I tend to be weirded out. Perhaps what I'm saying does not really justify some of my behavior, but I do hope this gives you some perspective. I accept the current 31-hour block and I'll try to care less about Wikipedia moving forward. I mean, I still want to contribute, that's why I'm trying to compromise here, but maybe turning off notifications, removing some from my watchlist, etc. P.S. I forgot about the discussion at Impact of the Music of the Spheres World Tour. The best way to go would be trimming a bit of the section in order to add more content, that controversy received far more coverage than it deserved. — GustavoCza (talk · edits) 23:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

GustavoCza, no, being "weirded out" over being close to the only editor at a page for several weeks at a time doesn't justify any of this behaviour; anyone can edit on Wikipedia, and I don't care how meticulous you are – you are being too overly protective. I also find it rather convenient that you say you "forgot" about the Impact discussion (and would redirect your comments specific to that topic there to generate further discussion) – did you "forget" about the talk section at Coldplay as well, despite making two more reverts after I asked you to discuss the edits (which you still haven't done)? I don't buy it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm blocked. Where else was I supposed to make a comment about that topic right now? Regarding the Talk section at Coldplay, I saw you there and gave up altogether, laying out reasons on the edit summary instead. You make me tired. — GustavoCza (talk · edits) 00:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Gustavo, that isn't how Wikipedia works. Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. Once you have been reverted and pointed to the talk page, you need to discuss the issue there. Repeated reverting is disruptive regardless of whether the edit summary explains your arguments. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't even care anymore. Just leave the Coldplay article as it is right now if it pleases 4TheWynne so much. I'm genuinely tired of this and being blocked is annoying. I'll just remove a few pages from my Watchlist like I previously mentioned. If I don't know something is happening I can just go ahead with other contributions instead of stirring discussion. 4TheWynne say I'm being overly protective. That is my proposal for some detachment. — GustavoCza (talk · edits) 02:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Where else was I supposed to make a comment about that topic right now? At the article talk page, as you are only WP:PBLOCKed from articlespace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I just saw Blocked and came to be honest. Assuming the worst became a tendency indeed. — GustavoCza (talk · edits) 02:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Pblocked from articlespace for 31 hours for the 3RR violation. No comment on ther other potential issues, but I have invited them here to comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, based on GustavoCza's comments here and continual refusal to discuss elsewhere, I'm not confident that their behaviour is going to change, even after the partial block ends and even if they remove some pages from their watchlist. I've seen comments like Honestly, I don't even care anymore. Just leave the Coldplay article as it is [...] before, and they revert back to the same behaviour every time. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what exactly do you want me to discuss at the Coldplay talk page considering my edits were reverted and you got me blocked. Do you think I'm going back to edit-warring about the recent update to the lead when the block expires? Well, I'm not. As I mentioned earlier, I still want to contribute, that is more important to me. I'll gladly prove you wrong on reverting back to the same behavior. — GustavoCza (talk · edits) 09:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

You're probably thinking I'm trying to be sneaky or something, but I genuinely don't see why I should say anything there right now. I laid out my reasons on the edit summary and the reverts clearly mean you don't agree with them, so including them on the talk page will just be redundant at this point. I would rather leave things like they are if it means I don't get banished from Wikipedia altogether like you're proposing. — GustavoCza (talk · edits) 09:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@GustavoCza: To be clear, for future reference, you should post your comments to the talk page instead of reverting and posting them in edit summaries. If you and the other editor fail to come to an agreement, try one of the options listed at the dispute resolution page instead of edit warring. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

LLM misuse + other problems by Iamnilesh0321

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

---

Iamnilesh0321 (talk · contribs) is a user with a non-native English level ([159], [160][161]) who has been warned on their talk page 9 times by 5 users about unsourced content additions and/or disruptive LLM-generated edits, including final warnings from Newslinger. I was going to wait for Newslinger to handle this when they sign on but Iamnilesh0321 is seemingly trying to hit for the cycle of disruptive edits in the meantime: more LLM-generated updates [162], LLM-generated updates with bogus sources [163], lying about using LLMs [164], unsourced content additions [165], adding references that do not support content [166][167][168]. Also they are nurturing a promotional LLM-generated draft they seemingly have an undisclosed COI for NicheSports (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I've been monitoring this for a while. Note: A lot of these are from the Newcomer Edits feature, specifically "expand an article," which seems to be encouraging a lot of AI edits to tagged articles. (See discussion here.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT. FOARP (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I see they’ll already been blocked indefinitely per talk page. FOARP (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Mickey Mouse 1989 - 2

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

---

Mickey Mouse 1989 - 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a list in Portuguese where it doesn't belong. They are probably a sockpuppet of Vital Articles Expander (previous report). Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Horticultordeplantas. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Conduct of an editor on Patrick Beverley

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

---

• Patrick Beverley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 69.176.153.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2607:fea8:51de:2c00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last several months, these IPs (believed to be the same person) have been engaging in an attempt to add a passage to the Patrick Beverley article claiming this player is "one of the greatest defensive players in the history of the NBA". There's a list of diffs to consider:

Diffs regarding contested material

• 3 July 2025, the /64 pool adds "Beverley was known for his punishing defence and his follow back ability, Beverly is consistently ranked as one of the best defensive players in the modern NBA." [169] This was reverted by Deltaspace42 [170].
• 5 July 2025, the /64 pool adds "He is consistently ranked one of the greatest NBA defenders in history, with his lockdown style defence, and his powerthrust lock ups. Known for defensive speed, Beverley is feared amongst his peers" [171]. This is reverted by Tenshi Hinanawi [172]
• 5 July 2025, the /64 pool adds "He is consistently ranked as one of the greatest NBA defenders in history" [173]. This is reverted by Dahawk04 [174]
• 8 July 2025, the /64 adds "He is known as one of the greatest defensive players in the history of the NBA" [175]. This is reverted by Joyous! [176]
• 19 July 2025, the /64 adds "Known for swing-style of defense, he is widely ranked in NBA circles as one of the greatest defensive players in the history of the NBA. Beverely is known for his pest-like style of defense, and his ability to uplift the officials to offswing the game" [177]. This is reverted by Nixleovel [178].
• 19 July 2025, the /64 adds "Known for swing-style of defense, he is widely ranked in NBA circles as one of the greatest defensive players in the history of the NBA. Beverely is known for his pest-like style of defense, and his ability to uplift the officials to offswing the game." and sources it to this Chicago Tribune article. The Chicago Trib article was published 6 years before Beverly played in the NBA and thus can't support a claim of NBA anything. This is partially reverted by 2409:40f4:214d:6d9a:8000:: [179]
• 18 September 2025, 69.176.153.243 reverts 2409:40f4:214d:6d9a:8000::'s edit [180]
• 19 September 2025, a different IPv6 2600:1700:7b81:3840:940:e381:2ee7:53df adds {{cn}} to the claim [181].
• 19 September 2025, 2600:1700:7b81:3840:940:e381:2ee7:53df partially removes the passage [182]
• 19 September 2025, 75.104.111.193 removes the remainder of it [183]
• 20 September 2025, 69.176.153.243 reverts the removal [184][185] again using the article from 2006 as "proof" [186]
• 20 September 2025, I remove the passage noting it's behind a paywall [187], and in a discussion initiated by 69.176.153.243 on the article's talk page, I note that if he is so widely regarded, there are certain to be a multitude of sources to support that.
• 20 September 2025, 69.176.153.243 restores the information to the article again, once again using the 2006 article. [188]
• 21 September 2025, 2600:1700:7b81:3840:b1da:3f29:4cdc:eacf removes it noting the citation doesn't support the claim [189]
• 21 September 2025, the article is semi-protected for a week by BusterD [190]
• 5 October 2025, 69.176.153.243 restores the passage again still attempting to use the 2006 Chicago Trib article as 'proof' [191]
• 5 October 2025, I remove the material noting the citation doesn't support the claim [192]
• 5 October 2025, the /64 restores it and says any further removal will be regarded as vandalism [193]

The summary of the above is that 2607:fea8:51de:2c00:0:0:0:0/64 / 69.176.153.243 has attempted to push this material onto the article 11 times over the last three months with no source to support it other than an article that predates Beverley's career in the NBA by 6 years; i.e., no proof at all.

And now for the pleasantries:

• 20 September 2025, 69.176.153.243 claims they are an admin and that if the statement is removed, our IPs will be shadow banned and that the decision to keep this has been made. [194] No such decision has been made, and the IP isn't an admin.
• 5 October 2025, 69.176.153.243 says "Stop behaving like a coward whilst pretending like you are contributing here or something." [195]
• 5 October 2025, 69.176.153.243 reiterates that I'm a coward: "Fine with me, as long as the coward Hammersoft is okay with it." [196]
• 5 October 2025, 69.176.153.243 accuses me of bad faith editing, being openly hostile and aggressive, and believes I should be permanently banned. [197]

I'm not here to discuss the content dispute. I am here to note that 2607:fea8:51de:2c00:0:0:0:0/64 / 69.176.153.243 (assuming they are the same person, which seems obvious from their editing) has been reverted in their attempts to push this by at least seven different editors (see collapsed section) and is now engaging in a bit of a spree in attacking me personally. The protection of the article didn't stop this. A pblock on the article will not help, as they have engaged in the same sort of uncited positive commentary elsewhere [198] (see bottom of diff). Some help, please. I've notified 69.176.153.243 of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To be clear, my use of the term “coward” is not a personal attack — it is a policy-grounded description of documented editing behavior. Over the last three months, the other editor has inserted or restored an unsourced claim eleven separate times, relying solely on a citation that predates Beverley’s NBA career by six years — in other words, no proof whatsoever. In contrast, I have provided comprehensive, verifiable sourcing for each of my edits, all of which are fully compliant with WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedia’s civility policy (WP:CIVIL) draws a clear line between personal attacks and commentary on conduct. My language refers strictly to the latter. Describing an editor’s refusal to provide sources, repeatedly reverting against consensus, and avoiding any meaningful discussion under WP:CONSENSUS as “cowardly” is not name-calling — it is a factual assessment of behavior that evades accountability to policy. Wikipedia’s collaborative model depends on editors substantiating their work with reliable evidence and engaging in discussion when challenged. When an editor refuses to do either — and instead issues false claims of authority and threats of shadow bans — that is, by every reasonable definition, cowardly behavior. In short: I have supported every edit with verifiable sources. The opposing editor has offered none. My description addresses that conduct — not their character — and is therefore fully within policy. I stand by my assessment as accurate, factual, and proportionate to the documented pattern of evasion and unsourced editing. 69.176.153.243 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC) He has admitted he is unwilling to discuss the actual issue because he knows he is the one vandalizing. We are requesting a ban on his IP. Your summary is materially inaccurate and misrepresents both the editing record and the applicable standards for content inclusion on Wikipedia. 1. The Core Issue — Sourcing and Verifiability You claim there is “no proof” that Patrick Beverley is one of the greatest NBA defenders of all time. That assertion itself is incorrect. While subjective rankings can be debatable, the existence of credible sourcing supporting Beverley’s defensive reputation is not. Multiple independent, reliable sources — including ESPN, Sports Illustrated, The Ringer, and Basketball Reference analytics — have recognized Beverley for elite defensive play. Examples include: ESPN (2017, 2020) listing Beverley among the NBA’s premier perimeter defenders and All-Defensive Team selections. NBA official records confirming multiple All-Defensive Team honors (2017, 2020). The Ringer (2021) describing Beverley as “one of the league’s most relentless and disruptive defenders.” Statistical evidence: Beverley consistently ranks in the top tier of defensive rating and defensive win shares among guards during his prime years. These constitute verifiable, reliable sources under WP:V and WP:RS, which is the actual standard — not whether one editor personally approves of the phrasing. 2. Historical Citation Irrelevance Claim — False You allege that the only source “predates Beverley’s career by six years.” That’s demonstrably incorrect. There are numerous citations during and after his NBA tenure recognizing his defensive impact. The attempt to frame this as “no proof at all” misleads readers and ignores the breadth of available documentation. 3. Reversion and Consensus Being reverted by multiple editors does not inherently invalidate content. WP:CONSENSUS is based on policy-grounded reasoning and verifiable sourcing, not on vote-counting or repetition of reverts. The fact that multiple editors may have reverted unsourced additions does not apply to properly sourced claims grounded in reliable publications. 4. Conduct and Policy Context Your repeated characterization of my use of the term “coward” as a violation of WP:CIVIL misrepresents its intent. My language explicitly referred to editorial conduct — persistent refusal to provide verifiable sources, false assertions of admin authority, and threats of shadow bans — not to personal characteristics. WP:NPA prohibits personal attacks; it does not prohibit factual, policy-based descriptions of editing behavior that undermines collaborative norms. 5. Conclusion The record shows: My edits were supported by multiple reliable, contemporaneous sources. Your claim that the evidence “predates Beverley’s career” is factually untrue. The label “unsourced” is objectively false. The focus of my language is on editing conduct, not on the person. Therefore, your framing of this dispute — both factually and procedurally — fails under Wikipedia’s own verification and civility standards. In contrast, my position aligns precisely with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CONSENSUS, and rests on demonstrable, verifiable evidence — not on unsubstantiated assertion. 69.176.153.243 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

ANI is not a forum for debates about article content so please do not tangent into facts about Patrick Beverley. This noticeboard is for discussing editor conduct and all of the gaming aside will not convince me that calling an editor a "coward" is not a personal attack. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand that ANI focuses on editor conduct rather than article content. However, my point was not to debate Beverley’s career for the sake of argument—it was in direct response to the conduct displayed in removing sourced material and framing the discussion in a way that misrepresents my contributions. Referring to an editor as a “coward” is a comment on behavior in the context of this interaction, not a personal attack outside that scope. The characterization directly addresses the actions taken here, which is entirely relevant to ANI’s purpose of discussing conduct. 69.176.153.243 (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Claiming that calling another editor a "coward" is a policy-grounded description of documented editing behavior is the cherry on top of all the other evidence supplied here. It's a personal attack and claiming otherwise is evidence of either being not here to help build an encyclopedia or not being able to edit collaboratively. I've blocked 69* for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Good block. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Mellk is pro-Russia

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

---

User Mellk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be focused primarily on editing content regarding eastern Europe to ensure it has a pro-Russia slant and habitually trying to block articles that have been edited to read more pro-Russia to ensure they cannot be edited again (repeated protection requests). Very weird behaviour. 2A02:6B6F:E090:6200:3409:1881:3A6A:9AC5 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• I think Melik's revert at Elena Velez, which the IP subsequently reverted with a personal attack in the edit summary, was in order and without any bias. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  It wasn't a personal attack to note that the editor, reported here, was trailing/hounding the IP address on Wikipedia. 2A02:6B6F:E090:6200:3409:1881:3A6A:9AC5 (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Accusations of hounding in edit summaries can be personal attacks. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding Velez specifically there has been a coordinated attempt to whitewash her links to Thiel and the new far right on her wiki page, likely CoI but a different issue. 2A02:6B6F:E090:6200:3409:1881:3A6A:9AC5 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Are you really sure you want to be throwing around accusations like that in a contentious topic? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  I went to look at the history of Elena Velez, and good lord, what is happening in there. This has been going on since January, apparently. Semi-protected the article under WP:CT/AP indefinitely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Insomniac187

• Insomniac187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This morning, Insomniac 187 opened up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeneralMotorsDiesel; I will not repeat most of the meat of the SPI, but basically they accused GeneralMotorsDiesel (last edited in March) of creating a second account, GMDLondon (current account), and of having 'disruptive edits' as a sockpuppet of the first, when to my eye and that of @PhilKnight:, they just forgot their password and created a new account as there is no new edits to GMD's original account at all. That, and as far as I saw, GMDLondon was removing improperly sourced content from Insomniac that included sourcing from among other things, a Google Maps streetview of a railcar in California to 'prove' their edit.

I also noticed particularly vicious WP:BITEness against both GMD and GMDLondon both times they attempted to contribute, with Insomniac reverting their edits, and then on merely a second edit where they tried to explain their edit, were given not a welcome template, but an edit war declaration. Rightfully they got scared off because of Insomniac's attitude of ownership on any article they contribute to/create, and didn't return until just now as GMDLondon to try to properly source and remove uncited items in these train car articles, only to immediately get welcomed with an SPI rather than any welcome (and weren't even notified of the SPI at all).

I called into question Insomniac's behavior and asked them to close the discussion with an apology to GMD, and answer my concerns in good faith. Instead, they questioned my scrutiny, claimed their edits were sourced and tried to shut down the SPI. I again admonished them for their unwarranted attacks on GMD and asked them to explain their hostility. Instead, they chose to complain about months-ago talk page railfan gossip, then close and archive the discussion without addressing any concerns at all.

I would normally not report a backfired SPI, but Insomniac has had history this month with two articles of theirs being taken to deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locomotives scrapped by Scrap Service Company and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrap Service Company, with the first having their vote taken from a previous vote by Andy Dingley on a nomination from a year back and general tone of attack against their articles being removed (including the latter having Insomniac pull the PROD tag at the last possible minute, forcing @AndyTheGrump: to take it to AfD, a clear WP:GAME violation); the same vote was also used in this edit summary, which is plainly downright bizarre. They seem to thrive on antagonizing and daring others to remove their edit and resorting to threats when their own behaviors are under scrutiny, and that they would close an SPI the moment the tables turned on examining their behavior is of concern here. Now they will have to hopefully answer my questions without the threat of closure, and I hope they have good reasoning to defend their editing style and behavior. Nathannah • 📮 01:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Insomniac187: further conduct like the above will result in a block. (Also, you should not be closing SPIs or archiving them.) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I don't thrive on antagonizing and daring others to remove edits and resorting to threats. That is false, I never antagonize anyone.

• I only warn people if they keep edit-warring because I had a truthful reason to revert GMD's edits, because even if they were unsourced, they was also removing sourced claims, like BUGX 1752.
• I only warned them on their first account (GeneralMotorsDiesel), whereas the warning that they got from their second account (GMDLondon), that warning came from Kingsacrificer because they were removing things from List of preserved EMD SD9 locomotives and classing it as a "minor edit", when on Wikipedia, as per WP:MINOR, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. And this point is proven correct right here.

Second of all, me warning them about edit-warring is not a "threat". It's even stated in bold on the edit-warring notification that people can be blocked for edit warring and I quote the exact words "even if you do not violate the three-revert rule".

Thirdly you stated word-for-word and I quote "pulling back on your threats to report editors for contributing to 'your' articles now", and so I did pull back by shutting it down so I could move on and not be associated with it anymore, but as I stated earlier, warning them about edit-warring is not a "threat". So, hopefully this clarifies that.

Fourthly, I didn't copy and paste the WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT sentence from the other AfD, I used it as a defense because I wanted to put out something new and not put up with the same thing over and over and over again.

Fifthly, I know you were going to ask me "what about the 'do you seriously have problems with my writing' part", I used that as a defense to support my claim of the WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT, because I suspect that you were disliking what I created, which has resorted me to set the bar (of creating articles) lower and lower until there's nothing left but empty spectacle.

Sixth, you deliberately asked me and I quote your exact words "you need to answer all of our concerns", and I did, by responding with "I am trying to defend myself so no one would laugh at my writing", but rather than responding to what I stated, you instead chose to take it to ANI, because now I was in the phase of moving on and not being associated with it anymore.

Hopefully I clarified (and debunked) every single one of your talking points. Please leave me alone, I don't want to be associated with this drama anymore. Insomniac187 (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Insomniac187, this is a collaborative project. If you participate, you cannot be expected to be 'left alone'. Where issues arise, you are expected to communicate, responsively. More so, if you persist in ignoring Wikipedia's policies on notability and sourcing by creating articles which clearly don't meet Wikipedia standards. And while you were fully entitled to remove the PROD from Scrap Service Company (now at AfD), doing so with an edit summary which was not only a copy of something you'd already posted elsewhere and made little sense in the new context, but directly accused me of WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT and asked "Do you seriously have problems with my writing?" was entirely inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, I always try to make sure these articles meet notability, because I'm not perfect at it, as I stated before, I am still learning the ropes, meaning I always make mistakes. I always make sure which idea is worth executing if there's enough sources to back it up. The last thing I expected was someone to flesh out my articles with more sourcing and information I never knew of.

Sure it's a collaborative project, totally fine. I have no problems with that, but when someone says "leave me alone", that's a sign saying they don't want to start drama, or don't want to be associated with said drama and just want to move on.

Maybe there should be a feature that detects if a source is reliable or not. Insomniac187 (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no such 'feature', and nor is there ever likely to be. It isn't something that can be automated. We expect contributors to read the relevant policy (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) and then use their own judgement as to whether a source is reliable. If they are unsure, they can ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, though I'd not recommend doing that until you have got a better understanding of the policy yourself: which requires taking note of what people have already told you.

This isn't just a matter of reliability either. An article can be cited entirely to reliable sources, and still fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements. Again, contributors are expected to be able to judge for themselves whether an article meets those requirements. And since both reliability and notability require editorial judgement, it is inevitable that there will be cases where even experienced contributors disagree. Consequently, if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, asking people to leave you alone isn't an option. Not when there are legitimate concerns about content. If you want to contribute, you have to be willing to communicate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed; communication is required. One cannot be a contributor here on Wikipedia without communication, full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hateful conduct and personal attacks from User:Herb-Sewell

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

---

Herb-Sewell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making personal attacks on myself and other editors using slurs. Calling me (a trans woman) "(Redacted)lover", calling other editors "(Redacted)" and using the slur "(Redacted)" again, once again using the t-slur. Obviously unacceptable behvaior, request a block per the logic of WP:HID. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Indef block warranted, WP:NOTHERE jolielover♥talk 02:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Harassment from user asking for my location and mirroring my account name

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

Hi, I recently received a message on my talk page asking for my location by an account trying to mirror my username. It sure doesn’t feel welcoming. This person has never edited other than to message me and ask for my location. Can an admin please warn or block them if appropriate? Some people at the help desk pointed me here. Jumplike23 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for impersonation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Dimadick, Categories, and Wikiprojects

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

First of all: Categories & Wikiprojects are a very silly and avoidable reason to go to ANI. I've avoided doing so for years because such minor matters are Not Worth It. Unfortunately it seems there is no other choice.

Short version: There was some edit warring back and forth on categories & Wikiprojects (ex: diff, diff, or the full history of the recently created redirect talk page, all long after Dimadick knew this was contested from old edits ). I sought to defuse with a talk page query about a way to decide the matter. I offered to hold a consensus discussion on Dimadick's edits (diff), and have offered in the past as well (diff), and I'm even flexible on where. He's refused both times; see this diff reply. The second time, I directly said that if he's not willing to comply with community consensus and isn't interested in what guidelines say, the only other option is ANI. He directly said "Absolutely not." (diff) So... I guess the only option is ANI to convince Dimadick that there might be a problem with his edits, since there's no point in holding a discussion if he isn't interested in the result.

Longer version: Dimadick has an extremely expansive view of what counts as a good idea for a category and what counts as category inclusion. (See also the giant list of CFD notifications on his talk page). Essentially, he sees Categories as something like the "What Links Here" tool. If it's linked to in the article, it's going in the category on the article's topic. Not trying to canvass, but see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_7#Category:Apocalypse_of_Peter for a recently-created category where he just added in things that are related topics in the sense of Wikilinks, but absolutely not subtopics. This isn't unique though, this is common to other questionable categories Dimadick has made (e.g. see two separate talk page discussions (CTRL-F for the other one) on the various eponymous categories he's created and added everything vaguely related to. diff - here he says that for categories on military personnel like generals, every single battle they were in should be in them, and (diff) the opinion of the MILHIST project doesn't matter as "There is no such thing as overcategorization. It always reminds me of Don Quixote attacking imaginary giants."

Similarly, he also has an extremely expansive idea of what counts for Wikiproject scope. If there's anything even vaguely kinda sorta related, it should have that Wikiproject attached - he's added WikiProject Sociology to articles on nearly any topic, for one simple example. Unfortunately, many Wikiprojects are abandoned and thus don't have people who are part of them to point out that the scope is not that broad, but sometimes it is not really that puzzling. Furthermore, he's completely unable to take hints when people revert him that he should either slow down or discuss; instead he just either edit wars or tries again later, often successfully.

Some examples in the past:

• diff Adding WikiProject Crime, Disaster management, Law Enforcement, and Sociology to a massacre. This is beyond insulting. This wasn't done by bandits, this was done by the government itself, and it wasn't a "disaster" to be managed like an earthquake. And Law Enforcement? The cops aren't going to arrest their own government's people. Utter lack of understanding of what these terms mean. He of course waited a long time then… added all these back in ( diff, which I briefly reverted again after noticing while researching this ANI report, but then I self-reverted so as not to fan the flames).
• diff Arguing a character should be part of WikiProject Korea simply because she's Korean in-setting, adding it in twice until finally backing down after having had to explain the matter in-depth on the talk page, and failing to engage on the merits in said discussion. (Categorization of fictional character by that fictional character's origin is very unusual, especially when the author is from elsewhere - it's a Japanese game produced for a worldwide market.)
• diff, diff]. An extremely instructive diff. He took a war that happened in Judea and added WikiProjects Iran, Greece, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, as well as Sociology and Politics. Why? Because per edit summary "Added the WikiProjects which cover the Seleucid Empire", which was a participant in the revolt, and these are some modern countries that had territory in the old Seleucid Empire. Do I need to explain how crazy this is? It'd be like adding Wikiprojects for all 50 US States to the "Iraq War" article, because the US was a participant in the Iraq War, and these were subdivisions of the US. But even worse, because at least Maine / California / etc. are contemporary with the US - Iraq did not exist yet in the era of the Seleucid Empire!
• history Just look at all the WikiProjects here at Category:Paintings of the Ascension of Christ. See, Jesus was in the Ancient Near East (well not really according to our own Ancient Near East article which usually closes the period with the Persians and considers the Roman period out of scope, but eh, close enough) so obviously all paintings should also be in that category as well even if they were made in 1700s Holland. And let's add every single taskforce of Christianity (Despite this not being restricted to, say, Anglicanism) and stuff like Wikiproject Death (despite this being paintings of the Ascension, which is very much not a death, and not what Wikiproject Death is about anyway). This is far too over-inclusive.

These are just four instructive examples. In practice, I don't agree with Dimadick on most of his Wikiproject edits, but at least some are more contestable.

Now, if editors don't agree with my personal categorization preferences or standards, that's fine. I'm happy to adjust based on consensus and I suspect I'm stricter than most on what really qualifies for category / WikiProject inclusion - I want a strong link. But I'm also happy to live & let live for borderline inclusions, so I've never had a problem with any other editor with broader inclusion criteria. The problem is Dimadick is extremely far from the borderline cases and off in extremely tenuous connections, and has openly said in the diff above there's no way to convince him otherwise, he's gonna do his thing. This is the silliest possible reason to get sanctioned, but if he isn't going to take the hint that he doesn't dictate how categorization works on Wikipedia, then something needs to be done. SnowFire (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I have never agreed with SnowFire on anything, and I don't expect I will ever agree with him/her. Lets see about some of his laundy list of complains:

• • They argue that biographic categories about generals must not include their battles and the campaigns which they led. Long after we have had a category tree about Category:Battles by individual person involved and a scope for its expansion.
  • "This is beyond insulting. This wasn't done by bandits" Massacres are never performed by bandits to begin with. Per the main article on the topic, they involve "mass killing of civilians" by "political actors". The article helpfully offers synonymous terms, such as war crime, pogrom, and extrajudicial killing.
  • "Categorization of fictional character by that fictional character's origin" Because the depiction of a nationality, an ethnic group or representation of any kind do not matter ... according to SnowFire's peculiar reasoning. And I suppose we can forget about inconvenient topics such Whitewashing in film or race in horror films which cover such representations.
  • "Iraq did not exist yet in the era of the Seleucid Empire" Your point being? We have categories on Category:Ancient history of Iraq, Category:Medieval history of Iraq, Category:Iraq under the Abbasid Caliphate, etc. Nearly every modern country covers historical regions with lengthy histories and the category system reflects that.
  • "not what Wikiproject Death is about anyway" Again, you have no idea what Wikipedia:WikiProject Death is about. Per its scope, it covers Death-related "Customs: Funerals, burials, green burials, cremations, pan-death movement, home funerals" and Death-related "Religious: Afterlife, reincarnation, resurrection".
  • "our own Ancient Near East article which usually closes the period with the Persians" Which Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East never did. Its main page currently covers topics on the First Jewish–Roman War and the Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE). Our Timeline of Middle Eastern history points out that nothing really ended or changed with the Persians, and the List of kings of Babylon ends with the Parthians in the early 3rd century CE.
  • And as for quote mining my reply, the full text was: "Absolutely not. I have seen so-called "consensus discussions" being decided by two or three persons playing tag-teams, and never bothering to inform anyone else." Dimadick (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Since you accused me of quote mining despite me linking to the full diff of your comments: Okay, so are you willing to go with what a consensus discussion comes up with (despite saying "absolutely not", which I thought was the relevant part of the reply)? Or if one is held and you dislike the result, will you just say that it didn't count? And where do you come up with "never bothering to inform anyone else" as relevant - you were being informed right there? It's not like I was proposing a secret discussion... this fundamentally misunderstands what a consensus discussion even is.
    • As for your other comments: To be clear, these are all arguments you could have made elsewhere, but the issue is currently your behavior more so than the finer points of Wikiproject scopes. The problem is that you've said you can't be convinced otherwise because you're somehow "right". That isn't how this works. Wikipedia is a collaborative project which means working with what the consensus says, and if the consensus says not to tag Wikiproject Death onto everything that is vaguely afterlife related, then you need to abide by that no matter how convincing you think your arguments are. And it shouldn't require others to plead and coax for you to explain your edits on talk pages - you need to explain your edits as you make them, and take notice when they get pushback rather than just wait awhile then re-do your edits (aka a slow-motion edit war). I'm not sure why you're so certain about WP:DEATH's scope - you've never ever edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death. You're not a participant at all in it, just throwing tons of stuff under the classification whether it's merited or not, burying the actually relevant articles.
    • As far as massacres, I have no idea what you're trying to get at. First of all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management probably shouldn't even exist (it's an inactive project with few left to define its scope), but it's clearly about stuff like responding to hurricanes. It's not about wars and oppression and the like. If you don't believe me, ask a friend, or just read the page. If you can't figure out such a basic scope check, I don't have confidence for you to puzzle out the scope of any Wikiproject. SnowFire (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
      • "I'm not sure why you're so certain about WP:DEATH's scope" Because I'm not blind. It has a very detailed description of its scope (with examples) in its primary page. Dimadick (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

      (admits to being confused himself at the premise that one has to be an active participant in a WikiProject in order to understand what the WikiProject is about. Do we require that a reader edit Wikipedia as a prerequisite to understanding article content?) Ravenswing 08:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

      • Not the intent of what I wrote. No, of course not, but Dimadick's grandiose statement made it sound like he was some sort of unique expert on the scope of Wikiproject Death; I solely pointed this out to note he was not. So no, the argument is not that he isn't a member, but rather that he has an extraordinarily wide interpretation of its scope and has said that there's no way to convince him otherwise. SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

User:R3YBOl

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

---

• R3YBOl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi everyone! I was patrolling through recent edits and logs, and saw the creation of IP that talk to R3YBOl. I drew pause and thought that "R3YBOl" must be referring to a Wikipedia user account. Well, I was right; entering User:R3YBOl into my browser took me to this userpage. I was greeted with a huge image that caused the interface to load in an unstable fashion and some objects to load in a weird fashion. Given how technically disruptive that the user page was as-is, I decided to edit the page and add a colon to the image call so that it doesn't load anymore.

Given the nature of the image and how it was disruptively causing technical issues - and adding that to the content that's currently on the user page concerning non-project focused political or national stances and viewpoints, I'm concerned that the user page is drifting akin into being non-compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines on user pages and content here. I wanted to start a discussion about this to get the community's input and thoughts on the matter. I'm on the fence with what to think and how to treat this, and maybe starting an ANI about it might be a bit too over the top, but regardless - I'd like to ask for you thoughts. What do you think about the user page, the content, and the image that was displayed when reviewing the revision before I hit the "off button" on that image from displaying?

As always, I appreciate everyone's time, attention, and their feedback on this matter. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't currently have the bandwidth to discuss the content of those images, but purely from a UX perspective: yes, that image is huge, thank you for disabling it; and the sticky ribbon-globe needs to be wrapped in {{Sticky decoration wrapper}} to respect users' preferences not to have an image follow them down a page (see WP:STICKYDECO). ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Blessings upon you; I didn't know myself how to disable that until now. Ravenswing 08:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the images from my user page. The large file size causing technical issues was unintentional. I am not as active as before, I didn't realize there was a problem. I'm busy with things outside Wikipedia at the moment. The images are gone and I hope the issue is resolved. R3YBOl (🌲) 12:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Oshwah, hope that your recovery's going well. It seems that (well it doesn't seem like it, beacuse they really did lol) R3YBOl had copied the image and the text below it from my userpage. Is the problem here that the image is big or is it the contents of it? If it's the latter (since that's what I understood from your 2nd paragraph), then I'm not sure how is that image different from having any other politics userbox 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Abo Yemen! Thank you for the very kind words. They mean a lot to me, and I'm happy to be alive and back on the project! I took everything on User:R3YBOl into account - the huge image display and the content stating the user's political views on the Palestine conflict - when filing this ANI discussion. If the text alone was there and the image wasn't blown up to display full size, I wouldn't have filed it. I took the image display initially to be political, as it came off to me as, "I'm disruptively displaying this image here to make a statement about my views on Palestine" (though I admit that I should've maybe considered giving the user the benefit of the doubt). Nonetheless, it's how everything was presented as a whole. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Oshwah I've been keeping up with your updates since day one, I even have ur updates page watchlisted, too. I was just a bit too shy to send a message since we've never had a proper interaction on here before (I just thought that your hair used to look cool, lol). When I added that image to my userpage, I tried to have it be responsive to different screen sizes, and on my current Wikipedia skin, it looks just fine. Yeah, it's big, but AFAIK it doesn't break anything on any device I've ever used to display it on. As for the political stuff, I don't think that wishing that children stop being bombed is political. This is just normal human behavior. Also, you probably scared R3YBOl with the ANI notice that they didn't even want to discuss the image and immediately removed it, lol. Also shouldn't this be something for AN and not ANI? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Abo Yemen - There's no need to be shy at all! You're always welcome to stop by my user talk page and say hello, and you'll be met with a warm welcome each time. :-) I took a look at your user page's source code, and the method you're using to display the image will call the full-sized one to render (you're just calling it using a wiki link). I'm curious to know: what skin are you currently using? I use the legacy vector (2010) skin, and this has always been the behavior when referencing an image using wiki link formatting. As far as this discussion at ANI goes, I think we can call this 'resolved'. I saw what I thought might be "disruptive political viewpoint-pushing" (if that makes sense), but it's clear now what this is not the case. I also agree with your assertion regarding which venue would've been more appropriate to have discussions like this started. In retrospect, ANI was a bit over-the-top; I'll make note to add discussions like these to WP:AN instead. Worst case scenario, I figure out quickly that it should be here instead, and I close that one and begin one here accordingly. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

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

New user removes refs, breaks code

sorry about the formatting, I'm out of practice regarding meta-wiki ;) User talk:WikiPinakpani is removing references and putting references from the reference section inline; also I saw some broken template brackets here and there. example - I think it would be best to revert those edits. the user seems to have some peculiar ideas on how refs should work. Sarefo (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sarefo don't forget to notify them about this discussion on their Talk page. Nil🥝 06:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

thanks, I now did so! off to sleep I go. Sarefo (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a new editor experimenting rather than being deliberately disruptive. I've left them some advice and suggestions on where to get help about things they don't understand. Nthep (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

IP editor on airport articles

Background:There's a serious ongoing issue with airport articles and bad-sourcing of destination lists. There's an ongoing discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists - WP:NOTGUIDE?, plus clear guidance at WP:AIRPORTCONTENT that any sources used must be independent i.e. not the airline's or airport's website.

This IP 85.199.232.66 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly deleting content from those tables. They usually give a source in their edit summary, but that is typically the airline's website and it merely shows the absence of a route and isn't independent. They have also used independent press articles, e.g. diff but those are typically vague and don't confirm actual removal of the route or a specific date, only that seat capacity is being reduced by flying fewer aircraft. With out actual facts this is just WP:SYNTH. Multiple editors have reverted their contributions. Where the issue persists on articles I have requested semi-protection, but in the meantime I'd like an admin to review and if considered appropriate to restrict this IP's editing of airport/airline articles. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10mmsocket (talk • contribs) 10:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It is clear admins do not understand how aviation works - airlines tend not to advertise cutting routes. Instead, they delete and remove from sale. When a route is not on sale between October and March, but then March only, it is seasonal (or vis versa). When its not on sale for two consecutive seasons (i.e. one year) then it is completely gone. Every edit I have posted information regarding this, but admins do not want to listen or understand. I have posted independent sources where possible but they are not going to come from press releases if airlines don't want to advertise. I have NEVER removed a route, changed a date etc. without checking first and ensuring the information is correct. For instance, TUI have cut Teesside - Dalaman, removed from the website and timetable - but they aren't going to advertise this, just not continue the route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.199.232.66 (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

As you can see this IP editor is now reverting edits. Edit warring while there is an ANI discussion ongoing is not great behaviour. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The edits I am reverting are clearly accurate - with independent links, clarity where required and proof from multiple sources. Not wanting to listen or understand is your own issue - but it is clear routes have date changes or gone where I have made the reliable edit 85.199.232.66 (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

IP editor is continuing reverting edits while this ANI is ongoing, and still going against the project guidance by adding non-independent primary sources (diff). Clearly not here to play by the rules. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

On your own talk page you wrote "We don't care about the truth only about what can be referenced with independent reliable sources. Again the airport project guidelines are clear about the need for *independent* sources."

I have provided clear reason for my edits and sources. I am updating pages to reflect accurate information of the day and clarifying the position to assist you and others in airline behaviour and rationale. The fact you are wanting for false information to be kept and spread should be looked into and not my edits when I am editing to ensure the pages remain accurate and factual.

Additionally, it is not just links to airport/airline pages you remove but independent articles too. Yet you don't want to admit that. Also, if an airline and airport confirm a route is gone but a journalist hasn't written about it, that does not mean it is not truth. I have elaborated this every time.

I believe 10mmsocket should be investigated 85.199.232.66 (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

10mm socket is absolutely correct. This is about verifiability from independent, reliable sources, not truth. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I would just like to note that Again the airport project guidelines are clear about the need for *independent* sources." - WikiProjects do not get to establish mandates. They get to issue best practices, and as experts in the area it's generally a good idea to follow them, but they don't get to say "Do X or be reverted". IMHO an airport or airline source should be perfectly cromulent as a primary source for "X airline serves Y airport", as it is a simple statement of fact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

85.199.232.66, you can choose to either cease performing the type of edits being raised as at issue while this is sorted out or be blocked. Your choice. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Another example of the continuing edits (diff) - albeit before your warning was posted 10mmsocket (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

TPA revoke

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

---

I believe a TPA revoke is in order for User:Herb-Sewell. Blocked editor with a clear WP:IDHT at this point. Electricmemory (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Final warning issued [199]. Let's see what they decide to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

They chose to ignore the warning. TPA revoked. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Yuri Knorozov article; ongoing issues (copied from WP:AIV)

• Yuri Knorozov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mellk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Extended content

Hello administrators,

This report concerns ongoing issues with factual accuracy and source reliability on the article Yuri Knorozov, caused by repeated edits from User:Mellk.

The user has repeatedly replaced well-sourced and historically accurate information with misleading or false statements — particularly regarding Knorozov’s education. They insist that Knorozov studied at Moscow State University, although multiple independent and official sources confirm that he studied at Kharkiv University (now V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University) before World War II.

Furthermore, this user has repeatedly reverted other editors' well-sourced contributions, removing factual content without justification and reintroducing disinformation. This behavior has disrupted the page and misled readers regarding verifiable historical facts.

In addition, User:Mellk has repeatedly introduced references from unreliable Russian-language or Russian-origin websites to support their claims, without any explanation or justification. These sources are not considered reliable under Wikipedia’s sourcing policies (see WP:RS and WP:UNDUE), particularly for biographical or historical topics related to Ukraine. Their use misrepresents verifiable academic and institutional information and promotes disinformation of Russian origin.

---

Evidence

• Stable, sourced version (before vandalism):

 [200] 

• Revision introducing false statements by User:Mellk:

 [201]  

• Article history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuri_Knorozov&action=history
• User contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mellk

---

Reliable sources confirming the correct facts

• **V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University (official site)** – confirms Knorozov studied at the Faculty of History in 1939–1941.
• **Euromaidan Press** – states he was born in Kharkiv and studied at Kharkiv University before WWII.
• **Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty** – notes that Knorozov, born in Kharkiv, studied at Kharkiv University until the war interrupted his education.
• **Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University (Philology Series)** – academic publication confirming his pre-war studies there.

---

Additional context

There is no verified academic or institutional record confirming that Knorozov ever studied or graduated from Moscow State University. All verified Ukrainian and international sources state that he studied at Kharkiv University (1939–1941) until his education was interrupted by World War II. The repeated reintroduction of false claims and removal of sourced information by this user constitutes factual vandalism and historical distortion.

---

Requested action

• Please review User:Mellk’s editing history for disruptive behavior and consider issuing a warning or temporary block for factual vandalism and repeated removal of sourced content.
• Please restore the last stable, sourced version of the article if necessary.

Thank you for your attention and help in maintaining the factual integrity of this biographical article.

(Note: My previous edits to the article were made before I registered an account.)

Hoshiiq (talk)

Note: I copied this from WP:AIV and advised the reporting user and the other party to discuss the article's issues on the talkpage. I think we can close this thread for now and re-open it later if no consensus is reached there. Thanks. ConnerTT (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the copying failed?

Is this related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mellk is pro-Russia? Nakonana (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Linke to the diff of the report from AIV: [202]. Nakonana (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

No. Presumably they are referring to this revert. I reverted their changes from today (which they called the "stable version" here) because they did not provide any sources and decided to make him Ukrainian even though he was not a Ukrainian citizen. They also did not discuss this whatsoever. Mellk (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The extended content is in the source text for this thread, but I don't know why I can't get it to show in the collapsed table above. If someone could fix that, I would appreciate it. Thanks. ConnerTT (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed it; needed a 1= before the copied content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The report somewhat reads like another take on your alleged pro-Russian stance and since the user mentioned that they just registered their account I thought it might be related to the previous report by the IP user. Nakonana (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't get this hatted content to "uncollapse" so I can read it. But if I go into "Edit" for this discussion, I can read it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Should be a "Show" button on the far right hand side of the hat? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by IP user after warnings and attempts to communicate

They dont seem to be responsive on their talk page and keep to the same pattern of edits that have been reverted numerous times: 37.191.128.39 (talk · contribs) . Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 18:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dr_vulpes tagging you in case you have more to say, since you made an edit on their talk page a few minutes ago. Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 18:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I only dealt with them in the Crime in Norway article and the sources they added. They were highly biased and would not pass WP:RS. I did leave a warning on their talk page about it because it the content was pretty serious and would need proper sourcing. They have not contacted me but they have stopped editing the article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This came across my radar as I've got the IP's talk page on my watchlist - would like to note they were previously blocked one month for edit-warring over AC&A versus L&C on a CE portal article, despite numerous clear warnings from myself and @Dmhll. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, The Kip,

Can you write out what over AC&A versus L&C on a CE portal article refer to? I'm not familiar with all of those acronyms and I bet others aren't either. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Liz - CE is the current events portal. The IP has had repeated issues with putting murders, assaults, and other single-victim crimes under the "Armed conflicts and attacks" header, typically used for wider-scale events (ex. terrorist attacks with multiple victims, or wars/battles), when they should be put under the "Law and crime" header instead. They consistently revert efforts to the contrary, and don't respond to warnings. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Polish IP adding cartoons to various portals

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

Recently a Polish IP user has been adding portals in bunches of cartoon articles. For example, the user added the portals for Portal:South America and Portal:2010s to Brandy & Mr. Whiskers. Other examples include [203], [204], [205], and [206].

While not bad faith, these edits do feel disruptive because I cannot think of any reason why the South America or 2010s portals needs this cartoon listed under it. It feels like WP:OVERCAT/WP:CATDEF, but I cannot find any parallel guidelines for portals. It's honestly unclear what the guidelines for inclusion in a portal even is. I did not want to approach the user in my admin capacities without first seeing what the community's thoughts are on the issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive edits and refusal to discuss regarding French government continuity

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

I would like to report ongoing disruptive editing by User:Accccepting who keeps making unreferenced and disruptive edits in several articles, including France, Prime Minister of France, and Sébastien Lecornu. The user repeatedly claims that the office of the prime minister of France is "vacant" based on "Google" and "news articles", despite being shown that their disruptive interpretatiton of political reality constitutes WP:OR and contradicts established practice and reliable sources.

I have attempted to engage with the user on their talk page (User talk:Accccepting) and explain how governmental continuity works in France, but they have not responded meaningfully and keep pushing their edits. Their edits are unsourced, disruptive, and ignore existing style and verifiability. Tahōmaru 多宝丸 ^talk 21:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I am very disappointed in Tahomaru's comments. Hopefully some other editors will step in and help, and Emmanuel Macron is supposed to appoint a new PM soon. All the best, Accccepting Accccepting (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

They are almost hurtful. Accccepting (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Accccepting, you are saying that your source is google. Could you please provide the links to the sources Google is providing you? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

https://globalnews.ca/news/11466050/france-prime-minister-resigns/ Accccepting (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-france-prime-minister-sebastien-lecornu-resigns/ Accccepting (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Neither article contains the word “vacant”. Northern Moonlight 02:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat made by Roshie227

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

---

• Roshie227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KLAS-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all. I'm starting this ANI discussion to report that Roshie227 added a legal threat to their edit summary on their edit here to KLAS-TV. Furthermore, there appears to be some trickery going on with that article regarding possible sock puppetry, but I'll investigate that separately from this discussion here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

NLT block applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger - Gracias! I responded to the NLT warning on their user talk page with instructions for retracting their threat if they wish to remain unblocked; the user is welcome to follow the instructions for retracting their threat if they wish to continue editing on Wikipedia. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Excessive Block Threatand Harassmentbased on Unreliable AI Detection:User:Theroadislong

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

---

I am seeking intervention regarding the conduct of Theroadislong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have been threatened with an immediate block based on repeated, unsupported accusations of using an LLM/AI chatbot.

Theroadislong has engaged in a pattern of escalating accusations and block threats after I introduced a high-quality source (Vatican Dicastery) to an article.

• Accusations: Claims include "hallucinated source" and invoking WP:CIR based on supposed LLM use (see [1]). The accusations escalated with a public claim that my Talk page comment was "100% AI generated" based on "gpt zero" (see [2]).
• The Threat: Theroadislong then issued an explicit, final block threat on my Talk page, stating I would be blocked the "next time" I edit (see [1] again).

This relies solely on an unreliable AI detection tool to make severe accusations, violating WP:AGF and constituting harassment. I cannot edit constructively if any good-faith contribution is immediately flagged as AI-generated and used as grounds for a block.

I am requesting that an administrator review Theroadislong’s conduct and confirm whether my recent edits and my defense of sourcing are compliant with policy. I have stopped editing to prevent a preemptive block. Desertstorm1000 (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Desertstorm1000&diff=prev&oldid=1315642964 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Congregation_of_Mother_of_Carmel&diff=prev&oldid=1315641799

It's not harassment to inform you of potential policy violations. Did you use an AI/LLM, yes or no? 331dot (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

"I request that a human editor implement the following changes" REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites is all AI according to GPTZero. Your source at Congregation of Mother of Carmel returns a 404 and has never been seen by the internet archive or Google. Yeah, it looks like this was all made with an LLM. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ve sent that draft to MFD and restored the other article to its state before someone turned it into an AI urinal. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Obviously AI. If not trolling, at the very least they are not here. Let's not overthink it. —Rutebega (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If you don't want to be accused of using an LLM, then don't use an LLM to generate your defense against the accusation. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I missed that one! Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

And here we are with another thread on WP:AN/I about LLM abuses. I think we are very far beyond that point that we need to ban LLM usage in all use cases and develop automated tools and/or edit filters that prevent this sort of slop from getting on the project. It has become overwhelming. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a clear case of it being outright disruptive. WP:BOOMERANG time, blocked indef as WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Something like the new paste detection thing being tested on other wikis (currently meant for copyvio) could be promising for this. Maybe we should investigate preventing non-autoconfirmed or non-EC users from pasting large amounts of text. I'm not sure LLM written content will ever be reliably detectible with edit filters or automated tools, especially as LLMs improve. --tony 00:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems the Edit Check extension can be configured to silently add change tags if large amounts of text were pasted into the visual editor. It would be nice if this can be applied to the source editor too. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

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

KingThorondor89 vandalism

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

---

Diffs: [207][208][209][210] all on the same article. And here is my talk page warning, and their charming response prior to me filing. And they're continuing to vandalize. Xan747 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Someone123454321 not getting the point

Someone123454321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a single-purpose account who only edits articles related to feminism. By their own admission, they had a bad experience with radical feminism and they are "biased" toward "feminism in Korea in general".[211] Note that I already tried RfC once, but nobody came down to resolve it.

• They have racked up warnings on their usertalk page for contentious editing. Some of those are from me, but others are from multiple editors.
• They constantly have poor understanding of Wikipedia, trying to rewrite an article because of "POV" even though others told them they're adding their own POV,[212] trying to erase a word referring to genitals even though Wikipedia is not censored,[213] adding things from other language Wikipedia without considering the contents,[214] and so on. I can't list them all if I want to keep this concise.
• They ignored an ongoing discussion and created multiple sections at once to illustrate their point.[215][216]
• I have instructed them twice to visit Teahouse to learn about Wikipedia guidelines.[217][218] They never go there, except for one time they tried to take the dispute there. Someone123454321 was also offered by Grapesurgeon to work on non-contentious topics.[219][220][221][222] They don't do that either.
• They had to be constantly told to stop what they're doing and join discussion over last 4 months.[223][224][225][226][227][228] In spite of this, they demand they should be explained about "what part of [their] edits fit into the disruptive editing."[229]
• They've posted a link to personal attacks from other Wikiproject, [230] claiming I had "something going on in the past."[231] It has nothing to do with the ongoing discussion and Someone123454321 only posted this to cast aspersions. Administrator came in and revdel'd their comment.
• While Someone123454321 has apologized for their behaviors, they later made a statement that retracted these apologies. I'm not ashamed of what I did here. I am trying to make points on what I think could be improved on, and there is nothing wrong with that.[232]

The last two made me decide to file a report because there is no way to explain those as good faith.

Some of these might not inherently be a problem individually, but when you see their overall behavior, they refuse to learn anything, refuse to collaborate with other users, and most egregiously, refuse to stop when the communitiy disagree with them. I did not behave the best due to my inexperience with newcomers, but I don't think anyone could have changed their mind, given their refusal to move on. I hate coming to ANI, but none of the other dispute resolution options worked, so I'm requesting administrative action.

Paging @Grapesurgeon, who had engaged with this person before me. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)