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

Take 3: continued unsourced edits after final warning by 76.157.118.61

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

---

76.157.118.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who edits intermittently, has continued to make unsourced edits despite many warnings by me and others since May about this issue on their talk page. Here are the diffs of their latest unsourced edits: [1] [2]. I am requesting a block (or at least a partial block from the main namespace) to prevent damage to the encyclopedia's integrity by insertion of unsourced text. I have previously taken this to ANI twice but gotten no response; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199 § Continued unsourced edits after final warning by 76.157.118.61 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1200 § Take 2: Continued unsourced edits after final warning by 76.157.118.61. Graham87 (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I second this. I've looked through a few dozen edits, all of them unsourced, and virtually all of them incorrect or unhelpful. A block seems to be in order. Woodroar (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I support a block as they keep making unsourced contributions despite multiple warnings to stop doing that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I've just realised that out of their 132 edits so far, 87 are marked as reverted (see their edits tagged as such) or 66%. I don't think that's a particularly good statistic in this case. Graham87 (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Their latest edit is one more to add to their list of reverted edits, but that revert was about their unusual editorial style rather than the addition of unsourced content. FWIW I was OK with this recent edit of theirs, which is similar. Graham87 (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week. This has been going on for long enough that I'm not confident that this will not simply continue afterwards, feel free to ping me if they do and I'll extend it, but I don't want to block an IP for longer as their first block, we'll see if this gets their attention. Rusalkii (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Woodroar (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much! Graham87 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Block request for 76.157.118.61

Could an admin please take care of this? Most of 76.157.118.61's contributions have been reverted. (Even contributions without the "Reverted" tag are often reverted eventually.) Their only use of a Talk page was whatever this is, so they clearly know about Talk pages but refuse to use them. This has been going on for months now. Woodroar (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I 100% endorse this request. Graham87 (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Support block given the ammount of unsourced contributions and lack of discussion on talk page. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Rusalkii has blocked for a week. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this 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) ([3])
• Much of what you say above is incorrect but arguing with you is way too tedious for a human being ([4])

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 [5]. 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. [6] [7] [8] 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 [9][10][11]- they came back under an account to deal with copyright violations uploaded by Drbogdan to Commons[12]. During the Commons AN/U (trans. "AN/I") that resulted in Drbogdan's ban,[13] Drbogdan tried to canvass Randy to his side;[14] Randy didn't respond, but within about a week of the ping, started restoring Drbogdan's old material on enWiki,[15] 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[16]. I don't think this will get better if there's a one-way iban. Also, posts like this[17] 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[18] - 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[19] 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: [20][21], 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 [22]. 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.[23], 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. 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.

• [24] is a warning following this removal, no reply
• [25] is a warning about not using edit summaries when manual reverting, no reply
• [26] is a warning for removals in these edits, no reply
• [27] is a warning for removals in this edit, no reply
• [28] and [29] are warnings for removals at Roxelana [30][31], no reply
• [32] is a request to explain this revert, no reply
• [33] is a request to explain this revert, no reply
• [34] is a request to explain this BLAR, they did reply [35]
• [36] is a request to explain this removal, no reply
• [37] 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.
• [38] 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 [39][40][41][42]. 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: [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]

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 [51], and again ignored the request and made an edit elsewhere [52]. This is a very simple case at this point. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

ThurnerRupert disruptive editing at Israel and attacks

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

---

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

Over the past month, ThurnerRupert (talk · contribs) repeatedly removed the entire early history paragraph from the lead section of the Israel article, citing that it was too long and did not belong in the lead. However, such a paragraph is customary in other country articles. After reverting, I left a standard talk-page notice via Twinkle. Although I later shortened the paragraph significantly, the editor escalated the issue to the unrelated WP:Conflict of interest, while never using the article's talk page, and:
— characterized the repeated removal of an entire lead paragraph from a high-profile article as "a tiny content disagreement";
— baselessly claimed I insulted them;
— frivolously suggested I be topic-banned from Israel for a year.
(and I'm not a she, by the way.)

Timeline:

• 31 Aug: ThurnerRupert removed the paragraph.
• 01 Sep: Reverted.
• 21 Sep: ThurnerRupert removed it again.
• 22 Sep: Reverted.
• 22 Sep: I left a talk-page notice.
• 24 Sep: I shortened the para by a third to a very brief version.
• 28 Sep: ThurnerRupert posted at WP:COIN.

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Why have neither of you used the article talk page to discuss the content dispute? Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

triggerhippie4 message and subsequent edit on my talk page, where he removed the invitation to discuss, gave the impression of "no discussion desired". he kind of trivialized a thing i deeply care about: edit wikipedia freely, discuss changes on the talk page, agree on it and continue. i am not sure what might help him to get a better feeling what might insult others and what not, and maybe even see other parts of wikipedia. abstain a while from editing the topic one is closest to may be of great help. i put a section onto the israel talk page, i like your idea best, Schazjmd. what you think Triggerhippie4? ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You care so much about discussing changes on the talk page but took nearly a month, several reverts and prompting on ANI to open a discussion on the article talk page? Something isn't adding up. Excuses about the other editor not wanting to discuss are absolutely lame when you didn't even try the basic thing of opening a discussion yourself on the article talk page. (Also the user talk page discussion was about 3 weeks after you first tried to make your changes.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

am not following edits too closely to be honest, and i am kind of very slow doing stuff, or answering to questions. i moved the text down a little, and then again, as i thought i did not save it the first time. i put the items i care in order, first free edit, and second, if controversial, discuss. but if you look my edit history, i rarely get involved in discussions, there is not a lot of value in being stubborn about something. either it works, or it works not. ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed that line from the standard template simply to keep discussion on your talk page rather than moving it to mine. Your post at Talk:Israel, now suggesting expansion after previously removing content as 'too long,' appears to be an attempt to save face. Your continued suggestion that I be topic-banned is just outrageous. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

to come back to @Schazjmd s original question, why do you up to now not want to use the israel talk page to discuss? ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• You both need to pull your heads in here. Reporting somebody to ANI without discussing your concerns with them anywhere is shocking behaviour. Claiming to have wanted to initiate discussions but you decided against it is very poor behaviour, as is edit-warring deletions of sourced content. Editing Israel/Palestine pages is very dangerous behaviour, and anybody not doing so in good faith is somebody wikipedia is better off without.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  to be clear, i moved text, not removed text. ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• [53] 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, ([54]) Kaisersauce1 tendentiously removes more cited content [55].
• [56] User removes cited content about the article subject which portrays it in a negative light.
• [57] User removes cited content about the articles subject which portrays it negatively.
• [58] Ditto.
• [59] User tries to obscure important (and negative) part of the (far-right) subject's life.
• [60] Conversely, here, the user obscures positive attributes of a progressive activist they clearly don't like.
• [61] Again, suppressing negative facts about a conservative BLP.
• [62] User removes discussion of possible racism, without edit summary. I guess we're supposed to be whitewashing history?
• [63] User tries to suppress negative facts about the U.S. in the lead, and then nearly edit wars over it ([64], [65])

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)

Fans flooding Love Island-related AfDs with LLM-generated !votes

I don't know if this is something that should be addressed now or just left to a closer to sift through, but single-purpose accounts have been flooding the AfDs for two former contestants on the Love Island reality TV show with LLM-generated !votes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olandria Carthen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nic Vansteenberghe. (Also see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Olandria Carthen, which is attracting a large number of misplaced votes for some reason). Much of this seems to be coming from substantial off-wiki canvassing, e.g. [66], [67], [68], [69] GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I think semi-protection should be placed. I'm sorry you're receiving such harassment from people with nothing better to do than make volunteer's lives harder. jolielover♥talk 13:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Very sorry to see that you were mentioned by name in one of those twitter threads. — Czello ^(music) 13:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

That's no big deal, I've dealt with worse than being called a "hater" of a show I've never seen :) My primary concern is keeping the AfDs manageable for the eventual closer, who shouldn't have to wade through thousands of words of AI slop to evaluate consensus. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the AfD for Olandria Carthen...article talk and the other article are not over the threshold for semi-protection at the moment inho. Ping me when it gets worse, or place a request at WP:RFPP. Lectonar (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I also hatted the obvious LLM comments at Olandria Carthen, feel free to double check and make sure I got everything and didn't accidentally hat something actually useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I've changed some of the templates to {{cait}}, but my rough assessment is that most of the stuff hatted should be hatted. It is a bit hard to tell though. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

45dogs That's a useful template, thanks. Why did you only replace "some"? —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I tried to only hat things that were obviously LLM generated; things with Oaicite are obviously LLM gen, but other votes could likely just be hatted as canvassed/extended content/SPA. Some of my hatting should be adjusted though.

(semi unrelated) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nic Vansteenberghe is getting more SPAs. @Lectonar, would semi protection be applicable? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I took a look and think it's applicable, so I took care of it myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Utterly devoid of merit "articles" for a recent series of a "reality" tv show that just ended, why am I not surprised...

The irony of course is that most of these people flooding in will have forgotten their names by year end. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely: Frederick Lewis Allen was editorializing a century ago over the "ballyhoo" of pop culture phenomena vanishing like thin air from the public consciousness as soon as their 15 minutes of fame were up. A Facebook memory about how little I cared about the Casey Anthony trial surfaced a couple of days ago ... and fourteen years on, I wager the reaction most people would have now would be "Who?" Ravenswing 10:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

As far as non-Wikipedians participating in deletion discussions, this seems like fairly proprietous advice. From the "threads.com" tweets linked above:

The way Wikipedia works: pages stay up if they’re considered notable. That means they need strong evidence of media coverage and impact.

- Join the deletion discussion page. - Post arguments using reliable sources (press, interviews, Olandria’s award nomination). -Keep the tone factual + professional, not emotional.

The best strategy is to - Add links to articles or features in reputable outlets. - Highlight their roles in Love Island USA S7 and recognition outside the show.

Avoid defenses like “they’re loved” or “they’re popular.” Those won’t count in Wikipedia’s process. What matters most: sources + impact.

If enough of us add strong, well sourced arguments, Nic & Olandria’s pages have a chance and may not be deleted.

It is difficult for me to think of any better way they could have done this, other than the flat assertion that people who aren't established Wikipedians are simply not allowed to know about our processes or participate in them. jp×g🗯️ 01:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

They got the advice from ChatGPT which explains how they're so educated on Wikipedia's notability guidelines and deletion processes. jolielover♥talk 01:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Who cares where it came from if it's true? jp×g🗯️ 10:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree with JPxG; that's sound advice, whether it came from ChatGPT or an admin with twenty years' experience. What's wrong with that? Ravenswing 00:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Pre-Chat GPT, these would have been WP:MEATPUPPETS that sounded like newbies. Post-Chat GPT, these are now meatpuppets that sound like experienced editors. Either way, they are still meatpuppets, and their presence in the AFD is bad. And them using tools to camouflage themselves slightly better is likely not a good thing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I am troubled by this adversarial approach to readers commenting on our processes. At the point when people actually being able to understand our policies is considered a negative because it allows outsiders to "camouflage" themselves, we may as well start wearing funny hats and doing candle-lit ceremonies. jp×g🗯️ 02:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Do they actually understand the policies? Or are they just copy/pasting what ChatGPT told them to? Parroting what they think we want to hear is an actual problem, perpetuated by people thinking these LLMs "know" anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is the canvassing/meatpuppetry aspect. A third party website is brigading our AFDs. If these were readers or editors stumbling across the AFD naturally and then asking ChatGPT what our policies are, then that would probably be fine. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Meatpuppetry and SPA accounts distorts community consensus making, even if they know just enough about policy to make a convincing sounding argument. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

My guess is that their source is some pixels on a computer monitor, which formed words that explained Wikipedia policies, which is the same thing we all did. So long as what they read was accurate, I couldn't give less of a damn if the pixels fell off the Pope's ring or the back of a manure truck. jp×g🗯️ 06:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Also noting that I've just AfDed the following contestant articles, which have similar notability issues:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leah Kateb
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kordell Beckham
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrington Rodriguez

Not sure if the fan enthusiasm is more related to the show or the two contestants I originally AfDed, but if it's the former, these discussions may need an eye on them also. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Coolcaesar: 125 complaints and counting

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

---

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

Tagging @Ymblanter, Pawnkingthree, Cullen328, Praxidicae, TJRC, Yamla, SilverLocust, Valereee, and InvadingInvader based on their participation in previous noticeboard discussions.

Coolcaesar has a two-decade history of treating other editors with contempt. This is evident from the 125 complaints on their talk page. The recurring motif is overzealous reversion combined with disparaging remarks. A request for arbitration seems to have been made in 2006.[70] Czar said "Consider this your last warning on tone" in 2016.[71] Ymblanter came here after being falsely accused of vandalism in 2022.[72] SilverLocust opened another discussion in 2023.[73]

Since then, five more complaints have been made.[74][75][76][77]s[78] However, that doesn't capture the scope of the problem because Coolcaesar has a habit of biting newcomers with a revert that includes a false accusation of vandalism. Newcomers don't complain; they just disappear. One particularly sad case from long ago is that of ThomasisScholar who was viciously and permanently driven away.[79]

Recent examples of disruptive hostility include:

• clear vandalism [80] in response to a newcomer's first edit.[81] A headline supports the newcomer.[82]
• possible vandalism [83] though the edit being reverted isn't.[84] Culs-de-sac is apparently the correct plural in French and is listed as being acceptable in an English dictionary [85]
• obvious vandalism [86] where the edit being reverted is pretty clearly in good faith.[87] Sunnyvale and Cupertino are adjacent areas and Sunnyvale does in fact have an Apple corporate campus.
• frequent vandalism [88] is another example of a newcomer's first edit being trashed.[89] Nvidia was founded by a former employee of AMD and at the time of founding was a competitor of ATI Technologies which later became part of AMD.

When this was last discussed here, Coolcaesar said: It is abundantly clear my efforts are not appreciated. So I will focus my text edits on a small number of articles I love the most (the ones where I wrote most of them), and I promise to keep my edit summaries for those articles terse, anodyne, and civil. And if even in that limited sphere, I again cross the line, feel free to indefinitely block me.

However, rather than a block, I'm drawn to a combination of civility supervision and an idea floated by Yamla: a mandatory WP:0RR restriction with no exception for vandalism. This would give Coolcaesar room to focus on adding content. Uhoj (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I now support a siteban. Coolcaesar's latest edit says that this behavior is due to their running out of patience. If that's true, they burned out quickly given that they were referring to good-faith edits as vandalism within a few months of their first edit.[90] Whatever the case, a repeat seems likely if they are unblocked without first being scrutinized in open discussion. If they change their approach, going through that process will be well worth it since they've demonstrated the ability to make extensive contributions. Uhoj (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN: The sooner we wipe out the pernicious nonsense that the definition of "vandalism" is "edits I don't like" the better. (Unfortunately, we can't do a whole lot about people who claim to be lawyers diving down false equivalency rabbit holes -- it's not "efforts" we don't appreciate, it's chronic and pervasive incivility -- but I digress.) If Coolcaesar's incapable of civil interactions with their fellow editors, let's by all means limit them.
  (Edit: and the discussion's just crystallized it. Like MiasmaEternal below, I'd support stronger sanctions now, because I don't see Coolcaesar being capable of collegial interactions, let alone civil ones. If you disagree with them, you're ignorant of the issues involved/haven't read the material. If you've been persuaded by another argument, you've been gaslit. If someone accumulates evidence to disprove their stance, they're being hounded. Wikipedia has no room for those who just cannot conceive of people holding different views from them without malice, chicanery or ignorance involved.) Ravenswing 10:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  You modified your position to argue for broader sanctions after I fully refuted your contention below that I am attacking "imaginary words" by quoting the exact words I was responding to. And you didn't respond further to that point. That speaks for itself. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  What that speaks to, sir, is that I've already said a fair bit more than my piece in this thread, and that unlike some others, I don't feel the need to bludgeon people with commenting on every comment everyone makes. I'm happy for the closing admin to take it from here. The concept of not being so enamored of my sparkling and superior intellect that I shower it in unceasing torrents upon the Wikipeons my fellow editors might be difficult for you to grasp, but it's there all the same. Ravenswing 21:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose' and counterpropose narrow topic ban on use of the word "vandalism" in revert edit summaries, WP:CHECKUSER investigation of User:Uhoj, and an indefinite block of User:Uhoj for violating WP:CIVILITY, especially WP:HOUNDING. As I explain at length below, User:Uhoj is out for revenge because of how I explained at length on Talk:Military–industrial complex why their edits are poorly written and violate multiple WP policies like WP:NOR. The point is to drive away superior writers like myself, then no one will be left to revert their poor-quality edits. However, in the spirit of good faith, I am amenable to a strict but narrow topic ban on the use of the word "vandalism" and grammatical variants thereof ("vandal", "vandalizing", etc.) in all revert edit summaries going forward. That will force me in reverting wrong edits to cite other reasons, such as "incorrect", "wrong", "factually wrong", "not correct grammar", etc. Obviously, there will be times when I do need to challenge obvious vandalism or patterns of ongoing vandalism, but I will do so on talk pages, rather than in edit summaries. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  superior writers like myself – Don't you mean "superior writers such as myself", Mr. Superior Writer Lawyer? (Of your use of myself, I'll leave my fellow editors to make what they will.) EEng 20:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, no, no, just no. All that does is leave you free to use hostile terms like "defacing," or "wrecking," or "ruining" instead ... or else claim that the Twinkle template left you with No! Choice!. Ravenswing 20:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Then about a broad topic ban on revert edit summaries except for short two or three-word factual statements that do not ascribe any specific intent to the editor reverted and focus on what is wrong with the content of the edit at issue itself, or simply link to the relevant policy. For example, grammar error, spelling error, no sources cited, OR, factually wrong, fails verification, off-topic, etc. And then if I want to say anything further, I will have to say, "See talk page" and post a civil explanation there. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Coolcaesar Why are you inserting your new comments above the earlier comments of other editors? Uhoj (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that Coolcaesar in my interactions with him has been unusually antagonistic for relatively minor disputes, essentially throwing the book at me for a BOLD move on Apple Campus to what would eventually consensus arrive at Apple Infinite Loop Campus and alleging that I should never move a long established page title. I personally am not surprised that this has continued to happen and while I do not deny that he has been contributing in good faith, his contributions can be often forceful at least from how I interpret what's happening. I am not ready to make a recommendation yet for how we should proceed, but I will keep an eye on this thread and see how it develops. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  See Talk:Apple Infinite Loop campus for full context. The current article title is rarely found in that exact form in published sources. As I pointed out on that talk page, the sources that use all four of those words either interpose other words between Apple and Infinite Loop, or if they do use all four words in that exact order, it's always with an apostrophe to show ownership, as in "Apple's Infinite Loop campus." Again, under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PLACEDAB, WP does not include unnecessary information in article titles, especially where no other thing has the same name and the name is already unique. It should be back at the official name, "Apple Campus," or the common name, "Infinite Loop campus". --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• See WP:BOOMERANG and WP:HOUNDING. This incident is User:Uhoj's revenge in response to this discussion on Talk:Military–industrial complex. I request all appropriate remedies including a sockpuppet investigation. Usually when an editor with only 1,275 edits is this well-versed in Wikipedia policy, they nearly always turn out to have had multiple accounts and have been banned multiple times before.
  The underlying issue is that the article subject is something that I am only casually interested in, but it is a low priority because it is a tangent to my core interest in the history of American science and technology policy and the related subject of the history of American higher education. That's why my main priority lately has been expanding coverage of the history of various University of California units. In other words, I have enough interest in the military-industrial complex to protect the article on that subject from poor-quality edits, but not enough to independently research the literature on the subject matter in sufficient detail to be comfortable with making meaningful contributions to the article. If you view the linked discussion (and scroll up), I and others kept pointing out how User:Uhoj's contributions to the article were egregiously failing WP:CIR, in terms of dozens of obvious errors, and they needed to stand down, WP:DROPTHESTICK, do some hard work on their research and writing skills, and then come back. User:Uhoj proceeded to lash out at me because I was obstructing their preferred version of the article (which was pretty bad, with over 40 obvious errors) while simultaneously refusing to invest my own time and energy to jointly contribute to building a better article.
  I am very busy with work today so I don't have the time to investigate and respond to all of User:Uhoj's accusations above. I will have to respond at length tomorrow. In general, User:Uhoj is dredging up old complaints for which I have already thoroughly apologized. As for the recent ones, my initial impression is that the revert itself was the correct action but my edit summaries could have been more tactfully phrased.
  For example, I described culs-de-sacs as possible vandalism because I had never seen that before in my life and it sounded like something made up. I am a history major who reads voraciously (including scanning all major English-language newspapers at least monthly for over 20 years) with extensive experience in real estate litigation, in which the term cul-de-sac is in common use. Researching the issue right now on Google Ngram Viewer shows that culs-de-sacs is a minority usage that was last dominant in the published English corpus in 1930 and cul-de-sacs has been clearly dominant since about 1970. So the alternative term does exist, but it is clearly obsolete. Perhaps I should have just said it was incorrect (i.e., a good faith but incompetent edit) rather than characterizing it as vandalism (which implies an element of bad faith). But the revert was the right thing to do. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  As someone with a similar number of edits to Uhoj, I'm not seeing what is suspicious about their knowledge of Wikipedia policy that would justify checkuser. I don't personally know what a civility supervision is (well I guess I do now), but the rest all seems within what I already know from observing ANI/AE discussions? Bear in mind that the idea at the end a mandatory WP:0RR restriction with no exception for vandalism is a quotation from another user, not Uhoj's own idea. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Culs-de-sac is clearly obsolete? Somebody should tell Wikimedia Commons that, then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Google ngrams is not a linguistic corpus. But even if you were right about the plural form (you are not), your remark Perhaps I should have just said it was incorrect (i.e., a good faith but incompetent edit) rather than characterizing it as vandalism (which implies an element of bad faith) is enough to make me support the 0rr restriction proposal. There is no "perhaps" about it, and this has been going on for too many years. --bonadea contributions talk 20:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Largely off topic discussion on Culs-de-sac vs Cul-de-sacs

• No, I am correct as to the plural form. Spelled correctly with hyphens, the overwhelming dominance of cul-de-sacs over culs-de-sac in the English language is much more obvious on Ngram Viewer. Culs-de-sac is unheard of in American English. As the New York Times style blog explained in 2015, the newspaper's stylebook uses cul-de-sacs, not culs-de-sac. The New York Times has about 18 articles which use culs-de-sac and several hundred which use cul-de-sacs. The Washington Post only has five articles which use culs-de-sac but several hundred which use cul-de-sacs. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Interestingly part of the cul-de-sac page if it still isn't changed still use culs-de-sac 37.186.32.157 (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is from the article: Environmental effects

  Culs-de-sac are criticised by urban designers like those of the Foundation for the Built Environmentin the UK for encouraging car transport for even short distances, as more direct connections are precluded by the geometry, which necessitates long travel distances even to physically-nearby locations. This increases fuel consumption and vehicle emissions and has negative effects on health by reducing walking and cycling rates. Related research in the United States by Richard Jackson has shown that people in car-based (cul-de-sac heavy) communities weigh on average 6 pounds (2.7 kg) more than those in traditional towns (with open grid networks). 37.186.32.157 (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  It looks like another anon IP overrode my revert on 23 June 2025 and I didn't catch it. If you look at Talk:Dead-end street and the article history itself, it's clear that a slow-moving edit war has been simmering on this issue for decades between American English and Commonwealth English speakers, but no one has ever bothered to drag the issue into the open and settle it once and for all with a full-blown RfC advertised on the village pump. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Also very interestingly, there's something in the talk page about the plural form… you may actually want to check it out. Maybe actually discuss it rather than discuss via edit summaries or call it vandalism when culsdesac gets used instead (which by theway is a valid plural of cul de sac) 37.186.32.157 (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  As someone who is bilingual in English and French I'd say culs-de-sac is preferable. It is certainly not vandalism to use it whatever the new york times might say about it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  The Wall Street Journal uses cul-de-sacs 87 times, but has apparently "culs-de-sac" never used culs-de-sac in the articles published on their web site (which go back to the late 90s). I just checked and the same pattern above is also evident with the Los Angeles Times. So four of the most important and widely read American English newspapers of record have adopted cul-de-sacs as the correct usage. The only people regularly using culs-de-sac in the United States are probably either bilingual in French, or they read a lot of European urban design books and journals written in Commonwealth English. But saying culs-de-sacs to nearly all American realtors or real estate lawyers will draw a quizzical expression, followed by a correction ("you mean cul-de-sacs"). Apart from my experience in real estate litigation, I'm the son of a retired real estate agent. I have a lot of memories of getting dragged along to open houses where real estate terminology was in the air ("this lovely house is very quiet because it sits on a cul-de-sac"). --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Tagging DFlhb who was involved in a previous noticeboard discussion, but was accidentally omitted above. Uhoj (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• I just took a further look. The pattern here is that User:Uhoj is stretching the truth to make my edit summaries look bad after the fact. This pattern of playing fast and loose was a serious problem with their edits in general on Military-industrial complex (as I had discussed at length on that talk page), which is why I repeatedly urged User:Uhoj in that discussion to drop the stick and take some time out to work on remedial writing skills.
  As to Bong Jong Ho, my recollection is that I reverted that edit as clear vandalism because (1) no source was cited for the contention that he had four Oscars and (2) a quick check of Google revealed numerous news sources saying he had earned three Oscars. So it wasn't a close call, which is why I didn't label it "possible vandalism" or use the more bland "incorrect edit". To make that look bad after the fact, User:Uhoj dug up an obscure news article which incorrectly said he had four.
  As to Apple Inc., the contested edit also altered an image caption which expressly stated that Apple Park is located in Cupertino, California (but did not change the city in that caption). So it was difficult to see how one in good faith could edit such a caption and then turn around and edit another part of the article to change "Cupertino" to "Sunnyvale". The image caption and the numerous mentions of Cupertino throughout the article should have tipped off the editor to the fact that Apple has always been headquartered in Cupertino.
  As to Nvidia, User:Uhoj is quoting me out of context. When read in context, I was not attacking that particular editor (an anon IP). I did not label the edit "vandalism"; rather, I called it "inaccurate". I then followed that up with a mention of my exasperation with how the Nvidia article is a high-traffic article seeing heavy vandalism nearly every day (because on most days it is now the world's most valuable company). The full edit summary for that edit is as follows: "Revert inaccurate edit on 29 July 2025 by 2402:e280:3e0c:20f:2832:2633:3d4c:fb36 which failed verification against cited sources. Article probably needs semi- or permanent protection at this point due to frequent vandalism." I specifically used the term "inaccurate" because if you look at the edit, the anon IP was inserting a facially wrong statement about AMD into a section of a sentence before existing citations to three sources. None of them mention AMD or say that Nvidia was founded as a competitor to AMD. However, I recall that I carefully refrained from calling the edit itself "vandalism", because I was aware that people unfamiliar with the nuances of Nvidia history might not fully understand that Jensen Huang, a former AMD designer, was not in direct competition with AMD at the time he founded Nvidia (since it did not acquire ATI until years later). (Pay attention to who took the HQ photos for the Nvidia and AMD articles.)
  Look at Talk:Military–industrial complex again, where I took the time to patiently explain, with the utmost civility, why User:Uhoj's edits are very poorly written and should not be in the article.
  Instead of following my advice and taking the time to become a better WP editor, User:Uhoj apparently spent at least three or four hours reviewing my talk page and my tens of thousands of contributions. It speaks volumes about their character, especially the reiteration of User:Yamla's 0RR restriction proposal. We are dealing with an editor who is clearly more determined to spend their time driving away superior writers like myself away from Wikipedia. User:Uhoj is WP:NOTHERE to build a better encyclopedia. The inevitable result is that no one will be left to revert User:Uhoj's terrible edits. I propose an (1) immediate WP:CHECKUSER investigation and an (2) indefinite block for User:Uhoj's violations of the WP civility policy, especially WP:HOUNDING. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  TL; almost DR, but I'll take notice of the last paragraph. This might come as a surprise to you, Coolcaesar, but there are those of us who do review an editor's contribution history before making sweeping assertions as to an editor's character and deportment. Is there some reason -- as one who claims to be a lawyer -- you're opposed to people looking at the evidence before acting? The "volumes" it speaks about Uhoj is nothing more than that they are being thorough. Beyond that, would you please ratchet down the hyperbole? If you're genuinely conflating wanting you -- at long last -- to follow Wikipedia's civility rules to driving so-called "superior" editors off the site, speaking of speaking volumes about character, that does about yours. Ravenswing 20:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't imply they're thorough, it implies they are vindictive and WP:NOTHERE. As that talk page shows, I gave generous feedback and advice in full compliance with the civility policy, which was clearly neither appreciated nor followed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Look around you, Coolcaesar. A number of uninvolved editors and admins are chiming in. Do you see many people here agreeing with your characterization of events? Ravenswing 20:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well, it's obviously because none of them took the time to review Talk:Military–industrial complex.

  I suggest searching that talk page for this text string: "Do you understand what the word "caused" means?" on 7 August 2025 and then read the analysis that follows. Notice the defensive response: "That's a pretty high standard for my additions to this article. Does it also apply to yours?" As you can see in the paragraphs before that, I was trying to be as tactfully vague as possible about the exact nature of the OR violation, then User:Uhoj professed to be blissfully unaware of any OR violation, so I had no choice to be blunt and direct. When you read that, and then read this incident page, it's clear that User:Uhoj is still seething. That's why I'm seeing WP:HOUNDING from my perspective. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  You're kidding, right? As it happens, I've just taken the time to review that exchange. If turns of phrase like The version with Uhoj's edits was in clear violation of WP:NPOV in so many ways I lost count. It read like a harsh polemic, not a neutral summary of the subject, I don't have the time to teach a college freshman English course to a stranger. I strongly suggest enrolling in a community college course, Uhoj's version is unsalvageable, Here is the most egregious example of at least 40 critical errors (I lost count after that), This sentence is horribly POV, Your text is beyond salvage., It raises the question of whether you're writing OR in violation of WP:NOR., You introduce all these crazy ideas, then we never see them again. That's just terrible writing., and so very many more -- long before that purported "defensive response" -- are your idea of "tactful," then we need stronger sanctions than 0RR. What the pluperfect hell? That's what you're proffering to show how comparatively civil you are? Ravenswing 22:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  If the civility policy means that editors can never challenge bad edits in any fashion when there are numerous and obvious violations of every Wikipedia core policy (NOR, NPOV, NOT, V), then the WP project is done. We should just let all the vandals run wild with misinformation, defamation, off-topic nonsense, etc. Yes, there were over 40 critical errors; yes, User:Uhoj's preferred version read like a harsh polemic rather than a neutral analysis; and yes, many of those errors were egregious violations of WP core policies. I was merely calling it as I see it, as gently as possible. How would you have responded to those poor quality edits? Revert them with no explanation whatsoever? How would that be civil? --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  There's a difference between improving the work of others and denigrating it. For example, you added sections titled This article is terrible in a couple places about a week ago. [91][92] That's not really helpful. Uhoj (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Again, more false statements. I welcome everyone to follow those links to those recent talk page edits. Read what I actually wrote under those headings. I presented precise and accurate criticism of why those articles are terrible.

  The foregoing statement is consistent with User:Uhoj's pattern (on Talk:Military–industrial complex) of resenting how I often point out how this or that WP content is wrong but then I do not try to fix it (as in the second link above) because I lack the competency or interest in taking the time to fix it.

  When User:Uhoj says "improving the work of others", they really mean (when read in the context of that talk page), "since you say you're smarter than me and you keep saying my writing is so awful, then you should take over this task and write a really good article" for me. And when I said no to that, because like everyone else, I have my own priorities, they initiated this incident to try to get my revert privilege revoked. That kind of retaliatory coercion is WP:HOUNDING. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  More false equivalency. It is concerning how swiftly and reflexively you jump to extremes: that you just can't seem to state your issue with someone's edits without the use of pejorative language. It is insulting to our intelligence to claim that the only conceivable alternative to spewing out insults is to let things slide altogether.

  Beyond that, your response to Uhoj below illustrates a recurring pattern: that you aren't really responding to the words someone says, but to some argument going on in your own head. I have no idea how you got from There's a difference between improving the work of others and denigrating it. For example, you added sections titled This article is terrible in a couple places about a week ago. That's not really helpful. to "The foregoing statement is consistent with User:Uhoj's pattern ... of resenting how I often point out how this or that WP content is wrong but then I do not try to fix it (as in the second link above) because I lack the competency or interest in taking the time to fix it." He says nothing of the sort. I can read that with my own eyes. So can everyone else. Would you care to respond to the actual words others are using, rather than to some imaginary (and, apparently, inimical) version of us? Ravenswing 01:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  First you say that I am verbose.

  Then I try to be concise and simple, and use links to do the talking.

  Now you say that I am responding to imaginary words.

  Um, no. Get your story straight. When you incorrectly imply that I am engaging in the tactic of attacking a straw man, it looks like a WP:GASLIGHT issue.

  "Imaginary words" implies you did not do a close reading of User:Uhoj's own words on Talk:Military–industrial complex. So I'll have to be "verbose" again, as you like to put it, and state what should be immediately obvious to anyone reading that talk page.

  The specific words I am referring back to above are as follows: "You've added many good photos and contributed greatly to articles on law. However, you have a history of falling into this sort of vacuous sniping when straying outside that core area. Five admins have already toyed with the idea of blocking you for it. Perhaps your valuable time would be better spent in another manner. [¶] For example, with your access to a major research university library you could start contributing verifiable information to this article. Or at the very least you could remove the writing that you know to be unverifiable."

  Notice how this personal attack came after I had already reverted User:Uhoj's edits, repeatedly concurred in others' reversions of those edits, and gently explained at length how User:Uhoj had demonstrated an inability to accurately analyze and summarize the content of a specific cited source.

  Read in that context, it is a fair paraphrase to say that User:Uhoj was expressing resentment towards me (as signaled by the use of the inaccurate personal attack "vacuous sniping" and the bitterly sarcastic phrase "perhaps your valuable time would be spent in another manner") for how I keep countering their edits but refuse to actually contribute my own to this particular article. Then I responded by explaining at length how their comments were counterproductive and had completely failed to persuade me to help them write a better article (by proving that working with them would not be an enjoyable exercise).

  With all that in mind, User:Uhoj's snide attempt to fashion a false dichotomy above between "improving the work of others" and "denigrating" them (false because I chose the third option, constructive criticism) amounts to an implied admission that they did this in response to my refusal to help them with "improving" their writing. In plain English: revenge.

  WP:CIVILITY does not require editors to drop all their own priorities to actively assist other editors who clearly lack the competence to accurately summarize a textual source by writing entire articles for them (again, User:Uhoj's inability to do that is fully explained at Talk:Military–industrial complex and they have not attempted any rebuttal on the merits). If that is the case, then WP is doomed.

  That's why this is clearly a WP:HOUNDING and WP:BOOMERANG issue. It also appears to be an incident of WP:DAPE, in the sense of a campaign to drive away productive contributors, out of spite. That is why I counterproposed appropriate remedies above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  So far you have posted more than 2,750 words in this thread. This is seven pages of texts on my computer screen. You're advised to not bludgeon the process any further and let other editors speak. Northern Moonlight 06:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  First you say that I am verbose.

  Then you post a 2,839 byte comment. Narky Blert (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing: I regret not having posted this before Coolcaesar responded:

  (1) I posted an addendum to talking about complaints of a condescending tone here.

  (2) Regarding:

  The foregoing statement is consistent with User:Uhoj's pattern ... of resenting how I often point out how this or that WP content is wrong but then I do not try to fix it...because I lack the competency or interest in taking the time to fix it.

  I believe you may have read that as Coolcaesar falsely accusing Uhoj of saying Coolcaesar "lack[ed] the competency or interest" to fix problems. I read it that way one time. However, if you look at the articles where comments like these occur, it's clear that Coolcaesar was referencing his/herself: Coolcaesar puts negative comments on the talk page--comments that point out bad content or edits--which offend Uhoj. Uhoj gets annoyed that Coolcaesar made the comments, yet won't fix the article directly and says sharp things like[93]:

  Coolcaesar: You've added many good photos and contributed greatly to articles on law. However, you have a history of falling into this sort of vacuous sniping when straying outside that core area. Five admins have already toyed with the idea of blocking you for it. Perhaps your valuable time would be better spent in another manner.

  For example, with your access to a major research university library you could start contributing verifiable information to this article. Or at the very least you could remove the writing that you know to be unverifiable. Uhoj

  I believe the verbose response from Coolcaesar was trying to clear up confusion about that quote.

  @Coolcaesar: Is my analysis correct? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, you are correct. Thank you for clearing up that point. That is the very heart of this dispute. That's why this is a WP:HOUNDING and WP:DAPE issue. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar:, your text here, aside from being extremely verbose, is very hard to read due to its formatting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I replaced the additional bullet points within the same comment with line breaks to help with readability. Northern Moonlight 20:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I think Coolcaesar's replies in this thread basically prove Uhoj’s point. Northern Moonlight 20:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Note: I am now in favor of a stronger sanction given their continuous egregious behavior in this thread. Northern Moonlight 05:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• I support the proposal, but I have no objections to a stronger sanction given his unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and (as an admin said) extremely verbose defences. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

What that kind of response shows is that (1) you didn't read through the cited evidence and (2) you fell for User:Uhoj's gaslighting tactics (see WP:GASLIGHT). It's hard to set the record straight in a concise manner when the misrepresentations are so egregious, as explained above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strongoppose siteban and possible WP:BOOMERANGcurrent indef should be sufficient per EducatedRedneck. Indeed "we see an editor successfully negotiate their parking ticket to a felony conviction."-Bgsu98. The diffs provided were unimpressive, including providing a diff from 2006. I looked at the dispute between these two editors at Military–industrial complex and I am shocked at what Uhoj has done to that article with edits like this. In that diff Uhoj put that Military–industrial complex] is "a rallying cry for those who oppose American militarism", which is not what the source says. The source says it is "a rallying cry for opponents of military expansion." Big difference. As most of us know, and as cited in that same source, the origin of the phrase is: "On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government." To call it a pejorative phrase is not consistent with the WP:RS I have reviewed. I completely agree with Coolcaesar's revert of the kinds of changes Uhoj has made to the article. Sometimes Coolcaesar was a bit harsh in comments reverting edits that definitely needed to be reversed--whether some of those were vandalism or not is hard to say. This AN/I is overblown IMHO and should be dropped. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [revised 19:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC) and 04:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)]

  Thank you. I'm glad to see that someone took the time to actually read the parties' cited evidence. I urge other editors to do so before commenting on this incident. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  ... and, once again, you equate disagreement with your position with ignorance. Ravenswing 01:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, I equate it with not reading the evidence closely and carefully. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  @David Tornheim I can see how this might be a hot button issue for you. It combines ANI with the topic of militarism. You write about ANI in the expandable section at the top of your user page. You are affiliated with Code Pink, an organization that campaigns against militarism.

If you're interested in resolving our conflict over content, meet me at Talk:Military–industrial complex with some sources and we'll hash it out. Uhoj (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Uhoj, you would be well advised not to address people in such a condescending manner while people are reading this thread. Girth Summit _(blether) 03:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You're not getting it, I'm afraid. People didn't flip to arguing for a siteban because of edit conflicts. People started arguing for a siteban because Coolcaesar demonstrated repeatedly, at great length, and with great vigor, that he was utterly unsuited for a collaborative environment where his (alleged) credentials and his (self-professed) superiority did not accord him a decisive vote over all other comers. It's troubling that you're not seeing that. Ravenswing 21:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

People didn't flip to arguing for a siteban because of edit conflicts. I never said they did. It’s obvious to me the pile on to sanction the accused was for the exact reasons you mentioned. The responses by the accused sealed his/her fate. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Addendum to my original post here: Although I agree with you that Coolcaesar's tone can be a bit arrogant and condescending, it sounds more to me like a tenured professor from the 1950s commenting with satirical hyperbole on the atrocious work of a Freshman. From Google AI:

Drawing inspiration from the formal yet scathing tone of 1950s academic satire, a tenured professor might have used florid, hyperbolic language when faced with a freshman's sub-par work. Rather than offering direct or constructive criticism, the professor would often resort to exaggerated, theatrical commentary to express their extreme dismay and disappointment.

• Sir, your prose has a quality of breathtaking, unvarnished chaos.
• I have seen better-argued theses on the inside of a cave wall, scrawled with a burnt stick by a neanderthal.
• This paper is a monument to all that a four-year liberal arts education is designed to prevent.

It reminds me of blow-hard attorneys as exemplified by Jackie Chiles in Seinfeld, who Google AI describes for having a “flamboyant legal style and characteristic dramatic flair, such as calling a woman's attire "lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous"” [The cute video clip compilation from Youtube was blocked. :( ]. Coolcaesar is an attorney.

I would hope anyone who saw a critiques like this would understand it is deliberately overblown and exaggerated satire with the intent to be amusing, where the writer is showing off their rhetorical skills. Some of the material and edits Coolcaesar was critiquing were indeed so bad, such as military-industrial complex, a strong negative reaction was often appropriate, so I did find the comments amusing. It's true, I wouldn't use that language or such hyperbole here, where it might not be understood to be deliberately overblown in a satirical exaggeration, because I know our policies don't have much tolerance for belittling editors, and what was ok in the 1950s is far less permissible now.

And I do notice a double-standard here where, Coolcaesar dishes it out, but then complains that Uhoj talks back in a similar condescending manner.

I do understand that editors are bothered by it; however, a 0RR or 1RR restriction is IMHO not appropriate to address the concern about talking down to other editors. I saw NO EVIDENCE of EDIT-WARRING. That’s what a 0RR or 1RR restriction is for. The problem is with comments in edit-summaries and talk pages that editors find offensive.

Note that Uhoj pinged in a select group of editors who probably complained about Coolcaesar's critiques of their edits, but failed to ping in those people in the major dispute with Coolcaesar at military-industrial complex, where the other editors agreed (like I do) with Coolcaesar that Uhoj's edits have compromised the article. See Talk:Military–industrial_complex#Neutrality_disputed here. I believe those two editors should be pinged into this discussion. I did put notice on Talk:Military–industrial_complex here.

Uhoj's sudden burst of editing in the last two years has been focused mostly on this one article.[94] I still can't figure out was the last straw that Uhoj felt the need to bring this to a noticeboard. Uhoj did not make that clear in the post; instead, Uhoj brought up a diff 10 years before Uhoj even started editing and other diffs from years ago. So I am inclined to believe Coolcaesar's testimony that disagreements at military-industrial complex are what this is really about, and the proposed 0RR sanction would give Uhoj a clear advantage by preventing Coolcaesar from reverting Uhoj's problematic edits to that article.

Note: a little over a month ago Uhoj brought a different editor from military-industrial complex who disagreed to this notice board: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1197#User:Volodia.woldemar_persistent_unexplained_content_removal. Perhaps they should be pinged too? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You say that I "pinged in a select group of editors". This is false. I pinged everyone who was involved in the previous two ANI discussions, just as the second discussion pinged those involved in the first.

You say "the other editors agreed (like I do) with Coolcaesar that Uhoj's edits have compromised the article". This is false. The RfC that just closed supported one of my additions and rejected Coolcaesar's position. Uhoj (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

So quick to deny that point, yet you have never denied my point that you brought this as a form of revenge. That says everything. John Henry Wigmore explained: "the non-production of evidence that would naturally have been produced by an honest and therefore fearless claimant permits the inference that its tenor is unfavorable to the party's cause".

Above, I counterproposed a strict but narrow TBAN against myself as the more appropriate remedy and expanded it to a broad TBAN when User:Ravenswing claimed that my proposal was too easy to evade. That is the more appropriate remedy here. Then I can get back to (1) uploading photos; (2) making constructive edits backed with full citations on various subjects that I really care about; and (3) reverting only true vandalism beyond any reasonable dispute (e.g., random word salads) only in articles I deeply care about. I contend that I should have the discretion to do so promptly, but only with the blandest and shortest of edit summaries that cast zero implication of maliciousness or destructiveness (e.g., failed verification, not correct, not supported, off-topic, etc.).

It is abundantly clear at this point that my efforts to improve articles on subjects in which I have only a tangential interest are not appreciated. So I will keep away from them.

Thousands of articles are going to slide into entropy. Not my problem any more. I will have nothing to do with them. Let the record show that User:Uhoj alone is responsible for this WP:DAPE. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You disrupted my editing. I found that you have a long history of disrupting the editing of others. Your talk page made it clear that complaints are ignored as a matter of course. I even stumbled across an old list of your rhetorical tactics that was assembled by another lawyer in an attempt to urge you onto the path of productive debate. I reminded you of your previous run-ins with admins to give you one last chance to allow me to edit in peace. You continued to be disruptive, as is clear from the result of the just-closed RfC, and so I brought you here to prevent further disruption.

I initially considered proposing mandatory adherence to fixing the problem, but the more I learned, the more it became apparent that enforcement would be complex. That's when User:Yamla's suggestion of 0RR presented itself as the more practical solution.

I was steaming mad two months ago. Now I just want this to be over so I can finish working on the article where we collided. When I suggested that you start contributing to the article I was being serious, though not above poking fun at your rhetoric. I'm sure you're pretty mad now. My hope is that eventually you'll embrace collaborative editing, and who knows, maybe we'll work together in a collegial manner some day. Uhoj (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. It really helps see how we got here. It sounds like the underlying concern driving this AN/I post is this allegation of disruptive editing at military-industrial complex than the hyperbolic condescending tone that Coolcaesar is unquestionably guilty of. Thanks for your last sentence above. I replied further at your talk here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does help everyone see how we got here. "You disrupted my editing." No, I pointed out an improper misuse of the word "caused" which stuffed unsaid words into the cited author's mouth, resulting in publication of unsupported OR in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. And I did in the most civil way possible by trying to keep it vague. I finally stated the exact nature of the violation only when I had no choice.

All User:Uhoj had to do was state an unequivocal denial. For example: "I strongly deny that I was motivated by revenge, I'm just here to build a better encyclopedia, and I'm terribly sorry if you see it that way". Nope. Didn't say that.

"I was steaming mad" admits my point: This is about revenge.

Unfortunately, the record is clear that no one is going to enforce WP:CIVILITY, WP:HOUNDING, WP:DAPE, or WP:BOOMERANG against User:Uhoj for their pattern of disruptive and uncivil conduct. The picture is coming into focus: everyone (except User:David Tornheim) prefers to throw out the editor who can write, whose tens of thousands of constructive edits have almost always been widely accepted without any complaints, in favor of the one who publishes unsupported OR in violation of WP:V and WP:NOR (again, a point which has not been refuted nor denied). And that is why the entropy is spinning out of control, because everyone who cares has been driven away.

Again, the proper approach is a broad TBAN as discussed above. If the closing admin prefers to impose 0RR instead, then here is what is going to happen.

There are about 50 to 80 articles I really care about for which I will strictly adhere to a 0RR restriction by going through talk pages to merely point out problematic edits for others to clean up. I will continue to quietly add facts and sources to articles on certain core interests. And I'll keep uploading photographs to Commons and adding thumbnails in relevant articles.

As for the rest, it's going to fall apart. Someday, if I ever get around to compiling a list of the most wildly outrageous edits that piled up when I wasn't looking, then ArbCom will have to make a finding as to who is at fault for why dozens of articles are overrun with misinformation because no one is watching them any more because of a pattern of WP:DAPE behavior. I am certain it won't be me. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

the editor who can write – Could you please stop crowing about what a faaaabulous writer you are? It's cringeworthy. EEng 03:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

What I'm alluding to by that is that on hundreds of occasions, I dug up citations to support important assertions widely known among technical experts in a field but not as widely known among the general public. We have thousands of articles on commonplace topics that are missing citations to support basic underlying principles. Much of film editing read like an unsupported personal essay before I began to read up on the subject over the past year. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California failed to mention that it was a landmark case until I added that recently. (It is widely known among American litigators.) I don't see User:Uhoj doing that.

Again, this is a driving-out scenario. If I don't have revert privilege, then fine, I'm not going to contribute to such a broad range of articles.

Is User:Uhoj going to take up the baton? Nah. They just want to take another writer off the field who is able to submit hundreds of edits without getting dinged constantly on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, or WP:V violations. They would have necessarily seen that in reviewing my extensive edit history. "Steaming mad" is not just a reaction to my pointing out what they can't do, but their reaction to seeing what I can do: it's called envy or jealousy.

If the OP initiating this incident was a widely-respected WP longtime editor with a much higher edit count against a far broader range of articles which overlap most of mine, I wouldn't have overreacted so harshly. I would have respected the OP's right to judge me (because they would have had a clear track record of edits even better than mine) and I would know that if I have to reduce my involvement due to my civility issues, the encyclopedia is in good hands (because that OP could be counted on to take over most of my watchlist). I would have responded with great care and caution.

But we are not in that scenario. The best I can do is make my record that this is a WP:DAPE scenario, so that when this keeps happening with User:Uhoj, someone else can seek appropriate remedies. Just as others have made their record against me over the years. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, it is abundantly clear that my contributions are not appreciated. I've made my record. I was driven out.

I'm done here. I am retiring effective immediately from the English Wikipedia project. I may remain active on other Wikimedia projects, though, like Commons, where my photographs can still be of use. It has been a pleasure. I bid you farewell. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You say that I "pinged in a select group of editors". This is false. I pinged everyone who was involved in the previous two ANI discussions

@Uhoj: You did ping a select group of editors. You claim it was from two previous AN/I discussions. Which ones are you talking about? Something from 10 years before you started editing? It's clear it's not this one: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1197#User:Volodia.woldemar_persistent_unexplained_content_removal, which you recently filed against a different editor you disagreed with at military-industrial complex--the article you focus most of your editing on. No one from that AN/I was pinged here. Why not ping them in here?

I pointed out that you did not say what precipitated this dispute. This noticeboard is for urgent disputes, yet you brought up issues from 2006 and others from years ago. Nothing in the last month. What are the recent edits by Coolcaesar that are so intractable that you felt it necessary to file this complaint? Where are the warnings you placed on Coolcaesar's talk page that you would file this complaint if things didn't improve? I saw no attempt on your part to reconcile whatever dispute you still had with Coolcaesar before filing this complaint. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

David, you posted more than 1,200 words in this thread. I’d like to remind both you and User:Coolcaesar that brevity is the soul of wit, since neither of you seem to intend to stop any time soon. Northern Moonlight 21:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed to be witty.  ;) Have we adopted the etiquette of the Court of Versailles?  ;) I reply here--David Tornheim (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

"Wit", in this context, means intelligence or wisdom. EEng 03:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@David Tornheim The previous ANI discussions in 2022 and 2023 are linked at the top of this discussion. Here are the links again.[95][96] No one from the discussion that you link was pinged because Coolcaesar wasn't mentioned. "This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." An explanation of why I proceeded as I did is given in my reply to Coolcaesar immediately above. Uhoj (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thx. I may reply at your talk page & link here. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Northern Moonlight and MiasmaEternal. Being overtly verbose in their responses doesn't help them either. Muffin(Spreading democracy, one edit at a time) 05:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Look, even if they save the universe, letting the behaviour continue after what amounts to a final warning back in 2016 is grounds for a clear-and-shut block. I am aware my vote doesn’t count but I thoght I would weigh in.--95.5.189.54 (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support after reading through this whole thread and Talk:Military–industrial complex, I don't see how we can let this continue. If I wasn't convinced by Uhoj, Coolcaesar's own comments sealed it. -- Mike 🗩 15:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. Coolcaesar has been doing this for too long, but I would have abstained if the only evidence was the opening statement by Uhoi. It's Coolcaesar's remarks in this very thread, such as accusing an editor of sockpuppetry because they know how policies work, that make me think that at least the civility restriction is required. One of my first hundred edits was to RFPP, it's not unreasonable to think that new editors might have read the policy pages before contributing. Referring to himself as a superior editor is also highly unacceptable, as is saying that everyone who agrees with Uhoi has been gaslit and didn't read the evidence correctly. The incivility needs to stop, and this restriction will accomplish that. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  I would also be willing to support a full siteban, mainly per Tamzin, as well as Coolcaesar's continued inability to get the point. I will also note that he retired from the project today, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still enact sanctions. It has become abundantly clear that he can't work in a collaborative project like Wikipedia without belittling other editors, and I have doubts that this can be changed. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well, we certainly have seen, over the years, a great many editors who've ragequit a step ahead of sanctions, when the snow started falling hard enough. Some have actually meant it. In any event, whatever his contribution history, I'm left to wonder what landmines have been left behind. Someone so unshakeable in his utter assurance that everyone else is wrong because he alone is right doesn't often have a clean trail in his wake. Ravenswing 12:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  UCLA School of Law could probably use some attention. Coolcaesar says they're an alumnus.[97] Their conflict of interest was noted and denied in 2024.[98] However, they're the top contributor to that article. The worst bit has already been taken care of. But, that was after being reinserted with slightly different wording 10 times over the course of 5 years. I got my hands on the book that Coolcaesar later added as a source, and indeed it fails to support their version. Other problem edits are insertion of puffery from self-published sources, e.g. [99], and a potentially excessive list of notable alumni. These problems may extend to other UC schools as noted in this comment. I haven't looked into that, but there could be some truth to it given: [100]

  Coolcaesar also attempted to negatively influence articles on rival law schools, but I think this was limited to talk pages. [101][102][103]

  Style issues may exist since they took a hardline and idiosyncratic view of this aspect, referring to authors of the MOS as "morons". One thread I didn't follow is animosity toward Britain/Europe/socialism. I saw that come up a couple times.

  If there's a query tool I'd run these to find bad edits:

  • vandal, mess, pigpen, idiot, moron, incompetent, Engrish, civility, close reading, SPA, MOS, style, official, indefinite, protected, protection
  • systemic bias [104]
  • article talk page activity prior to August 2021

  Uhoj (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. As QuicoleJR points out, this is an absolutely classic case of digging oneself into a hole with tremendous enthusiasm. I've seen a few spectacular cases of an editor determined to prove the assertions of an OP at ANI, and this one is up there. The proposed restrictions may, hopefully, resolve the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • To be entirely clear: I support a cban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Coolcaesar. DoubleCross (‡) 00:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  per Coolcaesar? Longewal (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely. DoubleCross (‡) 11:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. See Bushranger's post just above. EEng 16:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support siteban per comments in this thread like:
  • I request all appropriate remedies including a sockpuppet investigation. Usually when an editor with only 1,275 edits is this well-versed in Wikipedia policy, they nearly always turn out to have had multiple accounts and have been banned multiple times before.
  • The point is to drive away superior writers like myself, then no one will be left to revert their poor-quality edits.
  • If the OP initiating this incident was a widely-respected WP longtime editor with a much higher edit count against a far broader range of articles which overlap most of mine, I wouldn't have overreacted so harshly.
• These comments make clear that they do not feel they need to follow this site's policies, including WP:NPA (WP:ASPERSIONS), regarding editors who don't have high enough edit counts or do work that they respect. But that isn't how it works. We are required to follow conduct policies with respect to all of our peers, not just the ones we respect. If Coolcaesar is not willing to do that, then they are not able to be part of this collaborative editing environment, and allowing them to continue to edit would be unfair to anyone who they might interact with in the future who they don't deem worthy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't refreshed my memory on WP:NPA since April 2019 (the last time that policy came up on my talk page) and I have never seen WP:ASPERSIONS because no one has ever brought that to my attention.

I agree that the detailed ArbCom findings documented in WP:ASPERSIONS significantly affect the interpretation of WP:NPA.

Which goes back to the point raised by User:David Tornheim above: if dispute resolution had been attempted first on my talk page, all this could have been avoided.

It is fundamentally unfair to ban a user for violating ArbCom findings they have never seen before. But now that I am on fair notice, I recognize that violating WP:NPA as modified by WP:ASPERSIONS again would be grounds for a site ban. -- Coolcaesar (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Ignorantia juris non excusat, Mr. Lawyer. EEng 16:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, complete with wikilink, was in WP:NPA in April 2019. But I don't think it should really need to be spelled out that retaliatory claims of sockpuppetry, without any real evidence, are a personal attack. To take a real-world analogy, if you were to say you saw me run a red light, and I were to say, "Yeah, well I bet you were driving drunk, because people who say that sort of thing usually are", I think you'd agree that's a personal attack, yes? You wouldn't need someone to have shown you some rule explicitly saying it is; it's intuitively obvious. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS's specific holdings about "reasonable cause" are much more detailed then "lack evidence". It's also buried in the sense that nearly every other link in WP:NPA goes to a WP subject matter article or a WP policy article. Obviously, I would have been more cautious with my comments in the first instance if that specific link had been expressly brought to my attention much earlier. And again, this could have been avoided if the proper dispute resolution procedure had been observed to begin with. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support siteban I don't think I've ever done that before, but Obviously, there will be times when I do need to challenge obvious vandalism goes together nicely with For example, I described culs-de-sacs as possible vandalism because I had never seen that before in my life - the very idea that if you don't know something (through your own ignorance) it must be vandalism and then attitude like I don't have the time to teach a college freshman English course to a stranger from someone who, as EEng pointed out, has a somewhat elevated opinion of their own linguistic capability, together with almost every other contribution to this discussion brings me to agree with Tamzin. They are not able to be part of this collaborative editing environment. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support siteban this users behaviour is incompatible with a collaborative environment. Accusing all those who disagree of being ignorant, gaslit etc. is not on. That combined with their elevated opinion of their importance. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support siteban If the town "genius" designs and builds a beautiful clocktower which keeps perfect time, needs no power, displays accurate moon phases, plays a gentle glissando at the exact time of each equinox and solstice, and is hand-filligreed with the most beautiful designs of all time, yet they continue to commit the occasional arson, it might be agreed that said "genius" might be best run out of town...clocktower be damned. Further, this editor's behavior and wordsmithing recall "Poe's law," in that it is so outrageous that it seems almost like (and others have, above, seemed to explain it as) a parody of the antagonist in a badly-written roman a clef. Since our subject has, as they might write themselves, removed the inflated spherical plaything to their own abode, it seems wise to ban them and make sure their self-removal isn't quickly reversed once this "blows over."

☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 13:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support siteban Given the statements in this thread, I have zero confidence that, at this time, this editor will use the criticism to improve their conduct on Wikipedia. While there is plenty to be unimpressed by, I'm especially unimpressed by the excuse of being unfamiliar with WP:ASPERSIONS. This isn't some arcane Wikipedia styling rule; nobody working in a collaborative project ought to require official notification that accusing people of things without evidence is a serious problem. I've never been in a restaurant that has signs "please don't urinate under your table" or "please refrain from setting the dining room on fire" yet I and many other people are somehow able to avoid these things because of basic human interactions we mostly know by kindergarten. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. The phrase superior writers like myself induces spontaneous ebullition of my urinary excretions. Superior to whom? Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• And once again, we see an editor successfully negotiate their parking ticket to a felony conviction. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked based on their conduct here as much as the conduct leading up to it as their behavior is utterly incompatible with a collaborative editing environment regardless of a content dispute on a Talk page. I left a further note at User_talk:Coolcaesar#Indefinitely_Blocked should they opt to unretire. This doeos not preclude continued discussion of a site ban or civility restriction, but the block was long overdue. Star Mississippi 15:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support 0RR, oppose siteban: They are now indef blocked as a regular admin action. That means, in order to edit again, they need to convince an administrator that they understand and will abide by WP:CIV. That, plus the 0RR, would be sufficient to stop any disruption. If they return, a CBAN requires a lengthy discussion with the community, costing substantial combined editor time. The in-place regular indef uses the time of a single administrator only. I don't see the advantage to a CBAN, and see potential cost should Coolcaesar come back and intend to reform. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  If they return, a CBAN requires a lengthy discussion with the community, costing substantial combined editor time – Not necessarily. If his unban application is a product of the subtle and nuanced superior writing skills on display in this very thread, he'll be unblocked lickety-split! EEng 21:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm guessing this is humor, as policy does require that it be a community discussion, as opposed to convincing only a single uninvolved administrator. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  I wasn't questioning whether a community discussion would be needed. I was questioning whether substantial combined editor time would be required, given Coolcaesar's awesome powers of persuasion. Seriously. Really. Cross my heart. EEng 22:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  I am *entirely* in favor of Coolcaesar needing to convince the community that he's ready to check his ego in at the door and interact collaboratively with us Wikipeons, rather than just finding an amenable admin to unblock him. What we've seen over the last few days needs a good bit more than a cursory handwave to overcome, and I'm entirely comfortable with putting in my share of time in such a full-on discussion. Of course, those editors who feel such discussions to be a waste of time need not participate. Ravenswing 23:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support siteban. You know who this guy sounds like? Doug Coldwell with a JD. Compare:
  • Of course those that have made few or no Good Articles want to stop those that have made over 200 Good Articles. It looks like a case of jealousy, as those that have made few or no Good Articles wish they could do that but are not able to ... they wish to stop someone that makes a lot of Good Articles. -- Doug Coldwell [105]
  • Again, this is a driving-out scenario ... They just want to take another writer off the field who is able to submit hundreds of edits without getting dinged constantly ... it's called envy or jealousy. ... determined to spend their time driving away superior writers like myself ... The point is to drive away superior writers like myself, then no one will be left to revert their poor-quality edits. -- Coolcaesar, above in this thread. (That last bit is a comma splice, by the way -- more of that superior writing, I guess.)

Good riddance. EEng 21:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support community ban I normally prefer a normal block to a CBAN, as I see a CBAN as imposing often-unnecessary additional process to an unblock request that an admin can handle. However, in this case, we have a long-time contributor who had enough positive attributes that it took a lot of discussion to come to a blocking decision. In difficult cases like this, I believe adding a CBAN on top of the already existing block is justified. — rsjaffe 🗣️

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

Pi.1415926535

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)

Bikram32 - still no sourcing

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

---

Following on from this closed ANI regarding Bikram32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in which @Woodroar said @Bikram32 hasn't edited after replying here. If they go back to adding unsourced claims, I would propose a block until they commit to sourcing all of their contributions—and indef if they don't follow through..

Since then, they have received yet another warning for no sources on their talk page, to which they responded with … the only thing is that I don't know how to add verified source. They’ve been pointed to the various links on their talk page, and haven’t responded since… yet again today, they’ve continued adding unsourced content - [106]. What can be done here? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Jetstreamer as they left the note on their talk page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I've just indefinitely blocked them from editing mainspace and explained what they need to do (Special:Diff/1314533798). Hopefully they'll comply. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Please remove the edit summary from this revision

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

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1998&diff=prev&oldid=1314703524 says an abbreviation for the f word with just f but still I take that as a reason for the edit summary to be deleted. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Ordinary incivility isn't subject to revision deletion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Arguably that edit might warrant revision deletion for being WP:ATTACK on a low-profile BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Um, yeah. It was off the bottom of the page, so I just looked at the edit summary. :( Fixed. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 2 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.[107] 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.[108] 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[109] 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.[110] 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.[111][112] Hotwiki (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Adrianmaye1239

User:Adrianmaye1239 has against all common sense accidentally moved both their user page and user talk page to User:Adrianmaye1239/ Rock Kapak musical group and User talk:Adrianmaye1239/ Rock Kapak musical group, and I've been unable to move them back correctly. Can an admin please help fix this. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've managed to move their user talk page back to User talk:Adrianmaye1239, and their user page has been moved already, so that might not need fixing. Could an admin please check anyway, to make sure I got any moves of subpages etc correct? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be their M.O. which suggests either CIR or IDHT issues – see e.g. here and here. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you might say that: please refer to the highly abusive page move history of Hattan and title variants. Please see also the SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

LLM misuse by SouthernTHKnown

SouthernTHKnown (talk · contribs) is an editor with a non-native level of English ([113], [114]) who has likely used LLMs extensively while editing articles, primarily Traditional Thai clothing: [115], [116], [117], etc. This LLM-generated content is often unsourced, for which they have been warned [118], and displays classic signs of LLM "puffery" that violates WP:NPOV. The user has been notified about their LLM use on their talk page [119] as well as the talk page of the Traditional Thai clothing article [120]. 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 [121], to which they again denied using LLMs [122], before apparently changing their mind [123] and [124]. I was initially optimistic but then they immediately went and used an LLM to introduce more unsourced content [125] 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. [126]
    • 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. [127]
    • 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. [128] (note the telltale curly apostrophe in Thailand’s -- and there's another in the word region’s in this diff [129])
  • 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. [130]

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. [131]

• Then he admitted to using AI:

  I am looking forward to change some edits that show signs of LLM output. [132]

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)

Class project users and inappropriate userspace pages

• Magano Samuel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joel pg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simmy04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kashikale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kautondokwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kavanga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muningandu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A number of newly-created accounts appear to identify themselves as students taking a course at the International University of Management in Namibia. However, they are creating grossly inappropriate userspace content on their userpages and/or user talk pages. I have nominated a several of these userpages for speedy deletion as WP:U5. One user contesting the deletion stated that "[...] we were asked to do by our Lecturer, she asked us to add a page on Wikipedia and then write a biography of our group members, so I plead that you please do not delete it as it will lead to me and my group members failing the assignment and not qualifying for exams [...]".

The content also suggests that one or more account may have shared access. I have questioned a couple of these users ([133], [134]) but gotten no response. I have listed the accounts that I suspect are involved, but there may be others. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

And...

• Biography Goup assignment 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vero2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mosesabisai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hilmafatima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bale Theo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Turnerly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Au gree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Silasshipep1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ndaendelao 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Venture Vision (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SHATTY028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wesley.S722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ITL60USGroup001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Haifenejr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably)
• Surinah.fs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tinahnkerohassignmeent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simmy04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thebigfive5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Our assignment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Assignmentbuddiessquad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Martha Ickwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maria Kuumbwandjembo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ITL60USEzanIUM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ITL60US 2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 03 profiles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Surinah.fs09036 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Penelao 2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ITL Group Namibia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kauna Kaukofwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mariakahumbire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tusnelde Iilonga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ravinia Shipena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably)
• Monika Kambonde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (October 2023)
• Karunga Augustu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (October 2023)
• Shivutekarolyne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (October 2023)
• Writing buddies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (October 2023) (needs admin attention)
• Brave group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (October 2023)
• RJANE WRITING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (October 2023)
• ITL60US (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (October 2023)
• ItsMavinga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (September 2021)
• Astonishingdime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (September 2021)
• E. R. ERASMUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (September 2021)
• Ingula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (September 2021)

Also see [135]. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Did some cleanup on these, and blocked Vero. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}: Might be worth to do a checkuser to uncover additional accounts if they're all operating within the university network. This is something like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pashayat Jitendra all over again. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd checked some accounts associated with this cluster because of an evasion issue prior to seeing this thread: The accounts in question posted their "assignment" and then seemingly made new accounts after they got blocked, presumably so they could "hand it in". CU could conceivably be used to dig these up, but I'm not convinced of the utility of that endeavour. Chances are that blocking a bunch of them is just going to lead to more confusion and more evasion without addressing the underlying issue, which is that the instructor responsible ought to be told that this is not a good assignment. I suspect the smarter move would be to place a message on the talk pages of the already-identified accounts, informing them that their use of Wikipedia is inappropriate, and that they should please tell their professor as much. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I basically agree, it's usually better to try to reach the classes than it is to try to block all the kids. Izno (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, I have caught some of my own, I think.

Related per Children Will Listen: (Sorted later than originally posting this)

• Group assignment3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SoniaTShaapopi.01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• STN22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unrelated to this case per Children Will Listen

• Payasobouttabagg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sharma muskan 27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sukhdeepkahlon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sewak.sarwara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some of these might be unrelated or duplicates of what has been posted, though. I'm just basing this off what I have tagged solely for U5. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs: Group assignment3, SoniaTShaapopi.01 and STN22 are part of this group. The rest are probably unrelated (but could be related to something else, especially Sharma muskan 27, Sewak.sarwara and Sukhdeepkahlon.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I could have sworn I have seen more than three editors make userspace posts about this assignment, but I have sorted them. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Some that haven't been posted that I had an eye on are:

• TjitapiN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Haludilu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 15:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Adding Emilia Petrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the pile. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 17:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Was just about to bring this here as well, and I believe I watchlisted more accountsthan those listed. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• There are yet more of these accounts. I am still working my way through them. I first saw just a few of them, which referred to "our group wiki", which could have meant any of several things, so I posted a question to the talk page of one of the accounts, asking what it meant. (I have received no response.) Later, it became clear that this is a large-scale thing, with numerous students taking part. The students are divided into groups, tasked with creating biographies of themselves or one another; there is no evidence of any intention to do anything else. Some of them have created group accounts for the whole group to use, others appear to have created individual accounts for each member of the group.
• I have every sympathy for any student who in good faith does what their teacher has told them to do only to find their work deleted. Nevertheless, we can't allow people to do unacceptable things just because someone has told them to; this is exactly analogous to what happens when a person working for a business posts promotional material about it, and, on seeing it deleted, protests that "You have to let me do it, because my boss told me to": our answer is "no we don't". I have been deleting the unacceptable pages, because they are unambiguously misuse of Wikipedia as a web host, and posting a message to each account explaining that what they are doing is not what Wikipedia is for. I don't see any good reason for blocking accounts unless and until they persist in what they are doing after being informed of the situation. JBW (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• I started OS'ing pages containing PII and warning some of these users, but am out of time right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Left a note at WP:EDUN in case anyone from wikied knows about this. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging in the m:Wikimedia Community User Group Namibia folks (@Martin Hipangwa, Shikoha Tautiko, and Suzeen Simon: ), as maybe they can help reach out to this university and get them to help! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Let the os team know on ml. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

in case it isn't obvious: in addition to other concerns, we clearly cannot host unsourced biographical information about individuals written by third parties, per WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• It looks to me as though this may not be entirely new. There have been accounts doing nothing but creating userspace pages for students at this institution created in September and October in previous years. It looks to me as though it may have been a lower-key thing in previous years, just individual students creating individual pages, without the group organisation, but of course it's impossible to know how many pages there were which were deleted, and what they were like. However, to illustrate the point, User:Karunga Augustu is an example created in October 2023. JBW (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  One of the October 2023 accounts was ITL60US, which is the course some of the newer accounts are claiming to be a part of (e.g ITL60US 2025.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  You are right, ChildrenWillListen, and that is an account which had all of its editing deleted, confirming that, as I said above, impossible to know how many deleted pages there were in past years. The whole thing may well have been on a bigger scale in previous years than I realised. JBW (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• I found quite a lot of these. Most of them were also found by other people, and are listed above, but here are a few more which are not yet listed:

Anyala803 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Isharine Oases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Johanna Ndaitavela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

ITL60USassignment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lydia Tobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ms.Tjiueza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

JBW (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

... + a few more:

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

Emilia Petrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ndayola Ndaitavela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Elizabeth Uutoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Menesia Angula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Frieda Mateus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

JBW (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Another one at Linda nkero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 02:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• I think that we need to contact this school somehow to make them stop using Wikipedia as a web host or have some kind of edit filter that somehow prevents this being done in the first place or if that's not feasible, a 3 year IP block with account creation disabled to completely force the professors there to find something else to host on rather than Wikipedia 2A04:7F80:62:D1F5:4444:887B:67A0:16C6 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I added some temporary edit filters and just caught another one. I asked them to forward this thread to their prof, but I have yet to see any of them respond to comments or feedback from us. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know if this is at all useful, but Googling the course code mentioned above and the University pulls up a course fee list from 2023 that lists the course as required for Education related degrees. There are contact emails listed on the relevant faculty’s page. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Unresolved concerns about an editor's "pagewashing"

I have been compelled to open this dispute further to a protracted and increasingly acrimonious conversation with User:LivinAWestLife, which has shifted back and forth between my own talk page User talk:BlueandWhiteStripes and two disputed pages: Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Articles. My concern involves both page content and editor conduct, but I understand this is the most appropriate portal to seek a resolution.

The various conversations in the links above, read in order, set out the minutiae of the dispute.

In sum, I believe this editor has contravened the spirit of Wikipedia – which is to foster a collaborative environment to create a high-quality, reliable encyclopedia for everyone – by drawing up a set of guidelines and templates without due WP:CON, potentially affecting hundreds of Wikipedia pages, before proceeding from page to page to apply and, as necessary, enforce these guidelines.

This activity has already created an issue with at least one other editor, User:SounderBruce, on the page List of tallest buildings in Seattle, but rather than attempting to resolve the issue through the usual Wikipedia channels, User:LivinAWestLife responded by regurgitating the argument on his own social media pages, presumably without the knowledge of User:SounderBruce, while setting out details of an "alternative" page which he is preparing to simply replace the one in dispute – I refer to this process as "pagewashing".

Further to my own discussion with User:LivinAWestLife over the form and content of the Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands, the page to which I regularly and mostly contribute, you will see that this individual has requested to move and rename the entire page. I believe this to be a vexatious request, made on the pretext of "building consensus" but actually underpinned by the same principle of circumnavigating proper discussion by simply replacing the page. This is a significant concern.

The discussion around the Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands has been extensive and, at points, bordered on the uncivil (on both sides, I should acknowledge). However, on 2 October, in an effort to temper proceedings, I proposed a WP:DISENGAGE, which User:LivinAWestLife refused. With his escalation of the dispute and little indication that he is prepared to compromise to help resolve it, I have taken this step in the hope that mediation will provide a framework to help move things forward in a more measured and reasonable way.

I will provide links/screenshots of the social media activity in a separate email.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueandWhiteStripes (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@BlueandWhiteStripes: do not post links or screenshots to the social media actively on ANI. Doing so is considered WP:OUTING, and can get you blocked. If this case involves off-wiki information, such as social media accounts, you go to WP:ARBCOM. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. LivinAWestLife (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I will do so. BlueandWhiteStripes (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

While I believe this ANI entry is a major escalation, and that a channel such as an WP:RfC pr WP:DISPUTE would be more reasonable - perhaps on account of BlueandWhiteStripes not being aware of such channels - I will attempt by best to respond.

BlueandWhiteStripes has made inflammatory rhetoric in response to my concerns about the length, title, and scope of List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands. I first noted the issue on the talk page of said article a few months ago, which received no response, and proceeded to let the issue rest. The length of the article has previously been brought up. I have done no editing for the page itself except introducing a "too long" tag and a version of the infobox skyline template that I created. This issue did not come to my attention until I saw that he edited the infobox to include a category for 35 metre buildings. Knowing no other article will have any use of this variable, which are intended to be applicable across articles, I removed it and offered an explanation. I left a polite explanation on his talk page as well, and brought up some of my earlier concerns which were pertinent to the issue. The next day, I saw that he had replied in an aggressive and hostile manner, to which I was somewhat upset, but tried to respond fairly. We continued our conversations on the talk page of the article. I should note he offered to WP:DISENGAGE very early, within less than 48 hours of our discussion starting.

Since one of my issues was indeed the length of the title, I initiated a move request, as is normal for editors to do. BlueandWhiteStripes considered this a major escalation, and we continued to dispute the issue in the move discussion. During the process he has on multiple occassions directed pdrsonal attacks at me, while I have not (and if so, at least much more rarely) done the same to him, including accusations of bad faith, attacks on my political beliefs (YIMBYism), and my conduct on but off Wikipedia. BlueandWhiteStripe's rhetoric has devolved into ad hominems and personal attacks multiple times. The "regurgitation" that refers to can be found on a recent Reddit post I made on an account with the same name to r/skyscrapers, where I mentioned why the Seattle article has no graph, and responded to a Seattleite asking me why this was the case. In that response, I also linked a draft article on what I think the page could look like in my user Sandbox - common practice on Wikipedia, when you are unsure how large changes to the article would look. This is the extent of the so-called disruptive "conduct" on social mediahe is referring to. The fact that he is willing to link to my posts and comments off-site is maybe evidence that he is unfamilar on Wikipedia's policies, but I will let that slide. I will disclose I have made separate threads on the forums SkyscraperCity and SkyscraperPage to share updates on my editing, and pointing out which articles I have edited recently. If it is against Wikipedia's policies to promote one's own edits, I will cease to do so, but as far as I know this is not the case. On those forums, not once have I made any attack or snide remark about opposing editors.

His consternation about move or split requests is odd. On Wikipedia, pages are not owned, and any editor has the right to make such requests if they think the length or title of the page is unsuitable for this encyclopedia, which I very much do. Such requests are an attempt at seeking consensus, frankly the opposite of what he is accusing me of doing. I have noted in those discussions (and elsewhere about WikiProject Skyscrapers) that I would indeed like more editors to voice their opinions; at the moment, only one editor has done so. Since he and I are the main participants of the move discussion, there are only two disagreeing editors, and hence no consensus. His motion to bring the subject here instead of at RfC, and after less than ten comments on the move discussion, is not aligned with how dispute resolutions on Wikipedia works. He has accused me of being uncompromising, but given his language and initial response to my comment, I don't think he is willing to negotiate either.

I have made no secret that I want to improve the various "tallest building" lists on Wikipedia, many of which lack appropriate sourcing, formatting, imagery, and context. I believe I am on the spectrum and do quite like standardization, so I have edited a long-unused page on WikiProject Skyscrapers to describe how I would like an ideal tallest buildings page to look like, and for help during my own editing process, to remind me of anything missing. This page has existed since 2010 as a guideline for tall building pages, but it was not enforced and especially so since WikiProject Skyscrapers is quite inactive. I have no intention of "enforcing" this page upon every single tall buildings list on Wikipedia, including for articles heavily edited by others such as the one in question where it might meet resistance. However, since there were many outdated lists with few edits, I have taken it upon myself to improve them, usually by standardizing the table and adding in information, as per WP:BOLD. For example, here's the Warsaw page before and after I had edited it. In cases where I did meet opposition - the only case being Seattle's - I didn't expand on the issue further. Someone else had added the skyline infobox template to that article.

I will say that I do think these edits are wholesale improvements to these pages, especially for people interested in tall buildings and skyscrapers. There is no "agenda" besides a very strong interest in skyscrapers and for wanting to make these pages better, such that information on tall buildings is improved across Wikipedia. It is extremely common for editors on Wikipedia do have their own niche (or for them to care about standardization across articles), and so mainly edit articles of one kind or topic.

Moving back to the Birmingham article, I noticed after his response that the page was originally titled "List of tallest buildings and structures in Birmingham" and only covered buildings within the city limits of Birmingham. By looking at the edit history, BlueandWhiteStripes had started editing the article in 2020, and during so he expanded the scope of said article to cover the West Midlands, lower the height limit beyond and already permissible 50 metres, and moved the title in 2021. All of this, which constitutes a major and contentious change to the page, was done without prior talk page discussion. This is what the page looked like in 2020. Him accusing me of trying to force a change or edit without consensus is exactly what he has done, and is blatantly hypocritical.

While it is more detailed today, it is also excessively long (and I point out, again, longer than the page for New York City). General notability guidelines indicate there be a limit for what height should be used, which for a major city like Birmingham is evidently above 35 metres. By contrast, I have gone through the proper channels when seeking to make a change, following a discussion on the talk page.

I am seeking a move or split proposal, outlined in my move request, and any other editor could have done the same. In fact, I have sympathies for people who have invested a lot of time and effort on editing this article, so I have offered a split request that would remove little information from this article: to one for Birmingham, for Coventry, and the Black Country, which would have maintained most of the entries for this article.

I indeed also hope that this process could lead to a resolution, though ideally the move discussion should have run its course. LivinAWestLife (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

In addition, it would help his case if he could provide a single instance of WP:DISRUPTIVE besides my attempted edits to the Seattle article - none of which is destructive, by the way. LivinAWestLife (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

User:BlueandWhiteStripes has clearly violated WP:CANVASS by leaving a comment on SounderBruce's talk page. This is unprofessional behaviour that is extremely inappropriate on this encyclopedia.

I also note that SounderBruce would frankly find the state of the Birmingham article to be in disrepute, in contrast to the excellent Seattle article, of which he has made plenty of contribution. While I disagree with them, his opposition to my edits is reasonable on account of it already being a featured article, and there is a general conservative attitude that may be undertaken in these cases. However, I would not be so sure that he would approve of his wholesale editing process that has taken place between 2020 and 2025, all done without discussion, which goes far beyond the content I would like to add to the Seattle article. LivinAWestLife (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@LivinAWestLife:, your reply here is, frankly, far too long. Can you please attempt to be much more concise in your reply to the OP? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for that. While it seems like there is an agreement this issue is not worthy of an ANI, I will summarize my points.

Currently, I think the Birmingham article is far too long. After politely pointing that out on his talk page while explaining why I reverted an edit he made to a template, he replied aggressively and with hostility. We discussed the scope of the page but he has veered off topic into questioning my motives, accusing me of bad faith, and directed personal attacks against me.

I then discovered he had unilaterally moved the page in 2021, after he started editing the page heavily, and expanded the scope of the page (from Birmingham's city limits to a nebulously defined Metropolitan Area), without seeking any consensus or discussion whatsoever. This has made the page very lengthy and hard to navigate.

After discussing for a while I decided a move request would help reach a consensus and invite other editors to debate. I think this move request is completely justified, as any editor is well within their rights to make one, and I find the current title far too long and poorly defined (failing WP:TITLECON and WP:NATURAL) among others. Since I think the title and scope are part of the same problem, I suggested to split the page as well. BlueandWhitestripes saw this as an escalation, perhaps because he "offered" me to WP:DISENGAGE less than a day of our conversation starting.

I have indeed edited various "list of tallest building" articles in the past few months to improve them. Many of the articles I found were inactive and so I took it upon myself to edit them. I think these articles should have some standardization so to make the viewing experience (and comparing cities) easier. BlueandwhiteStripes has accused me of "imposing" a set of guidelines across various "tall building" articles and has taken offense to it, citing my edits to WP:SKYLIST that I made a few months ago, and claims this is an example of "pagewashing". These are merely toolkits and suggestions on how to make a good article, mainly for my own use. I have not attempted to "force" these guidelines on any article. I indeed think my edits have almost universally improved instead of detracted from the page and topic, though one is free to dispute this. In the singular page where I did meet pushback from a single editor (on Seattle's page), it was for (1) expanding an outdated and very short lead, and (2) creating a clickable imagemap and rearranging some columns on the table. None of this would be considered disruptive editing by any means.

Since this is something I am somewhat proud of, I have also made a small number of reddit posts as well as a thread on the forums SkyscraperCity and SkyscraperPage to talk about cities I recently worked on. Not once there do I disparage any other editors. I have brought up SounderBruce by name as an explanation for why the Seattle page lacks some features, in response to another Seattleite's question.

Overall, I find it very hypocritical that he has referred me to this noticeboard within the span of 48 hours of this discussion starting, while his conduct and actions have been worse. ANIs are, as noted above, meant to be for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems", which my concerns on the Birmingham page and standard move request are not. LivinAWestLife (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Content dispute. Or if it isn't, no diffs are given to indicate otherwise. ANI does not settle content disputes. I suggest that the pair of you each go find a manual on how to write concisely, and then sort this out using one of the methods recommended in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

That is precisely what I had indicated. ANI is not an appropriate avenue for settling content disputes, and an RfC should have been opened instead. Thank you. And, yes, I should be shorter with my comments, but it is difficult to when your opponent throws a wall of text at you.LivinAWestLife (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request redirects here when the type of dispute involves concerns about another editors' conduct. You can see from User:LivinAWestLife's diatribe above that this forms part of the case.

Can you please confirm how I go about addressing the issue of his ongoing conduct, if not here? Thank you. BlueandWhiteStripes (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's rather clear you have little basis to allege that I have conducted myself inappropriately. The only person canvassing here is you. LivinAWestLife (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

BlueandWhiteStripes, If you wish conduct to be discussed, you will need to provide diffs, together with a concise and clear explanation for what the conduct issue is for each of them. Nobody is going to try to disentangle the tangled mess of conduct and content disputes the pair of you have posted above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. BlueandWhiteStripes (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I have amended my above complaint per your instructions. It requires me to illustrate an overall pattern of behaviour so some detail is necessary, but hopefully it is succinct enough to digest. BlueandWhiteStripes (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I won't comment on the content dispute, but the off-wiki comments about me are unwarranted and frankly out of line. My dispute in the Seattle list is solely on the basis of maintaining FL status, not out of a grudge as these comments suggest. SounderBruce 22:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The editor in question has changed the content of his submission, rather than creating a new one. Editing your own comments, in this case substantially, after a lot replies have been made to them is against Wikipedia's policies.

All of his arguments have been addressed by me above and in so I shall not be responding to them, at risk of resulting in another wall of text. It seems he has gone through my contributions page in an attempt to find misdoing and cherry-picking them, and then trying to posit the most uncharitable interpretation of my edits as possible.

Your "examples" of improper edits in #5 are, and I say this with zero exaggeration, completely, utterly normal routine editing. You will see that in #181, I am literally just correcting the floor count for two buildings. In edit #182, I removed a misplaced piece of text that was placed at the bottom of the article. If these are the best examples he can find of my "nefarious" edits and "pagewashing", I am convinced his argument has no ground to stand on. And in edit #183, an unknown editor removed some words from the lead without providing a reason, so I restored them.

I will also reiterate using the User sandbox to create a potential or experimental version of a page that is unable to be edited as frequently (given that it has FL status) is completely accemptable practice on Wikipedia.

I will not mince words here. This editor's attacks against me are baseless and ridiculous, and his changes to his initial comment demonstrates this clearly. LivinAWestLife (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears he has changed it back within a few minutes of my reply, around 1:30 GMT. If his belligerent behaviour continues further, I am strongly inclined to think he is conducting a harrassment campaign against me. LivinAWestLife (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was promptly made aware after my reply that it was User:45dogs who had restored the thread to its original version. LivinAWestLife (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

LivinAWestLife and BlueandWhiteStripes, I've gone ahead and put the new version at the bottom for now, and restored the old text, since such a massive change really should not be edited in later. I also collapsed it, but feel free to remove that; I just was unsure of where exactly to place it in relation to the original. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. LivinAWestLife (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Revised version by BlueandWhiteStripes

Revised for brevity:

In July 2025, off-Wiki, User:LivinAWestLife stated his intention to use Wikipedia to platform his own free-to-view alternative to the paywalled membership site [Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat – Tall Buildings Directory]. He was already making major edits to individual Wikipedia Tall Buildings pages at this time.

1. On 12/07/2025, User:LivinAWestLife makes undiscussed changes to the Seattle Tall Buildings page and is asked by contributor User:SounderBruce to discuss the edits on talk. [136]. Instead, User:LivinAWestLife becomes argumentative and initiates an edit war which continues for two months. [137] He states that his own edits should be accepted to avoid the page being "demoted". [138]
2. On 10/08/25, User:LivinAWestLife attempts to introduce his own notability guidelines for the entire Wiki Skyscrapers project, by way of assumed consent. He is advised by User:SounderBruce that WP:DCON is required. [139]
3. Instead, from 10/08/2025 onwards, User:LivinAWestLife proceeds to make non-consented changes to the guidance template for Wikipedia's Tall Buildings pages. [140]. This "guidance" impacts 464 individual Wikipedia pages.
4. Off-Wiki, User:LivinAWestLife regurgitates his argument with User:SounderBruce on one of his own social media pages, setting out how he is going to circumnavigate the dispute by creating an "alternative" Seattle page to replace the existing one – I refer to this process as "pagewashing".
5. Meanwhile, he proceeds to move from page to page, enforcing his own guidelines and templates under the guise of these being "policy", making significant changes to each page with no meaningful discussion, and deleting contributions from other editors that impinge on his newly created content, e.g.: [141] [142]
6. On 22/09/2025, his actions provoke another borderline edit war, this time on the Dallas Tall Buildings page, which is ongoing. [143] [144] [145]

On 26/09/2025, I first become aware of User:LivinAWestLife after reading his proposal to split up and rename the Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands, to which I have been the main contributor. When I set out my reasoning for not doing so, User:LivinAWestLife reverts to my talk page, begins referencing to his own guidelines, and tells me "my work is appreciated, but...". He then escalates the discussion across two talk pages simultaneously.

With our exchanges becoming acrimonious, I propose to WP:DISENGAGE. He refuses and further escalates. His tactics include – but are not limited to – policy lawyering, cherry-picking, rehashing, victim playing and – when I attempt to make a single minor edit to one of his templates to help it work for the existing Birmingham page – retribution.

Retribution comes by way of a formal request to move and rename the Birmingham page, on the pretext of "gaining consensus". Consensus, of course, which will pave the way for another round of pagewashing.

To be clear, this is not a series of content disputes; it is the outgrowth of User:LivinAWestLife's attempts to steamroller any and all opposition to his personal takeover of an entire section of Wikipedia.

It should be treated as such.

--BlueandWhiteStripes (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Potential POV pushing from co-ordinating users

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

---

Hello, Myself and @Skywatcher68 noticed a pattern of behaviour from several users in which they remove all mention of "gen z protests" from various wikipedia articles. These users all display a similar misunderstanding of WP:NOR, and (as noticed by Skywatcher68 here all use terms like "linkage".

The users in question, as identified by Skywatcher68 here, along with some examples:

• 142.214.115.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Special:Diff/1314643150
  • Special:Diff/1314643989
• 142.59.165.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Special:Diff/1314847832
  • Special:Diff/1314845003
• 172.58.165.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Special:Diff/1314693082
  • Special:Diff/1314691132
• NotGenZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Special:Diff/1314651634
  • Special:Diff/1314650055

Currently blocked user 172.59.197.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was also making similar edits

Relevant discussion pages;

• Talk:2025_Moroccan_Gen_Z_protests#GenZ_name and Talk:2025_Moroccan_Gen_Z_protests#No_such_thing_as_“Gen_Z_Protests”

• User talk:Cmrc23#"Gen Z" POV-pushers
• Talk:Gen_Z_protests#No such things a “Gen Z Protests”
• User_talk:JBW#Gen_Z_edit_warriors

Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. As I indicated on the talk pages of JBW and Cmrc23, two of those IPs (142.214.115.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) & 142.59.165.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) are from the Toronto area and two (172.58.165.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) & 172.59.197.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) are on T-Mobile. This is all available via WHOIS reports and do not identify any individual.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, they simply like the content in dispute. 142.59.165.82 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• I have blocked the account, NotGenZ, for a week. I have put various blocks (partial or total) on some IP addresses and ranges, and semi-protected some of the pages edited. If necessary the blocks can be increased, and more pages can be protected, but I am trying to do the minimum necessary, to reduce collateral damage. JBW (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! The discussion in the user pages should be enough to alert users if this happens again Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:07, 3 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", [146], 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? [147] 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)

IP Hopping LTA

It appears we have an IP hopper making false edits that people have died with the edit summary "Heaven gained another angle (sic)". Not sure what to do, but whack-a-mole does not seem to be helping any. Addresses:

• 103.213.37.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.112.53.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 182.252.77.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.167.17.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.135.138.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Came here to report this and to cross-post the associated request for an edit filter. They're still going as we speak, and none of the addresses seem related to each other so no range blocks will work. Not sure if there is any common denominator as to which articles are being targeted that might help identify a source/motive. This possibly could be an off-wiki trolling campaign too given the speed of disruption. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's by edit filter or some other means, we really need to find a way to actually terminate this and prevent edits from being saved in the first place. This could become some pretty serious stuff too if any of the pages targeted are high-profile or well-known people (haven't checked). All it takes is one person to notice the page at the exact wrong second and all hell can break loose. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I requested protection for a few of the pages which were more active targets, but I'm not sure what else can be done. They'll eventually get bored or, if we go the page protection route, run out of targets. Until then, whack-a-mole is likely our best option, since an edit filter will likely just make the vandalism harder to spot. This guy will likely just find a way to bypass the filter somehow. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

This might have originated with Wisconsin IP 24.183.59.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); that's the first one I noticed in recent changes, at least.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The first IP to engage in this is 41.143.80.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The second (and possibly more revealing) is 2804:1B2:1848:115C:48D8:B283:7AD6:7F59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I was asleep then. :-)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:57, 3 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)

User:Platterpoint stating intent to block evade. Just a heads up.

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

---

[148] Putting here so others can keep an eye out on the pages they had been editing. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

TPA yoinked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Odds are they're evading a block already and likely using proxies as well. I feel bringing this here just gives them the attention they crave for. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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 [149]. I reverted this addition. [150] Then they inserted the content again. [151] 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 [152]. 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. [153] 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. [154] 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.

User continues to disrupt and spam the draft

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

---

User:Ihateforcethirteen keeps spamming and vandalizing Draft:Hurricane Humberto (2025), I have given them a final warning, but some of their edits might need reverted as they appear to be nonsense. I also requested a page protection for the article due to the persistent nonsense. Would someone mind reverting the remaining vandalism, protecting the page, and blocking the user please. This is going way too far. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

We don't typically protect a page when there's been a single account/IP vandalising it. The account's been indefinitely blocked. If the problem resumes under a different account or IP, report the account/IP to WP:AIV and request protection at WP:RFPP. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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

IP address with continuous disruptive editing

176.84.118.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing disruptively since the beginning of August, mostly in motorsport and Kpop topics. In this time, they've received seven different warnings about disruptive editing or not using sources, including a final warning on 14 September (here), and virtually every edit has been reverted. They have not replied to any warnings, don't use talk pages, and have never used a proper edit summary. Examples from September and today (I can best explain the motorsport ones):

• Adding unsuitable categories to pages 1, 2 (none of these drivers have competed in the F1 Academy series)
• Adding false information 1 (Kosterman did not compete in the Montreal race)
• Inserting headers in the incorrect place 1 (the following paragraphs are about round 5, not round 6)
• Inserting links to incorrect pages 1 (hockey player Robertson and soccer player Stevens aren't racing drivers)
• Adding unsourced information 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (most look false too, based on my limited Kpop knowledge)
• Inserting links in random places 1, 2

I would like them to be blocked for disruptive editing and lack of competence (I suspect they don't know enough English to edit here). I know IP addresses cannot be blocked forever but maybe it will wake them up and they can begin to edit constructively in the future. - Mitchea99 (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mitchea99 the IP address was blocked on 19 September for two weeks already. The latest contributions are only from today onwards. Are those disruptive? – robertsky (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I missed that since it's not on their talk page. Yes, today's edits are still a problem: adding a header in the incorrect place 1 and the previously mentioned clearly incorrect links 2. They weren't reverted in the usual way, as constructive edits were made by another editor afterwards, but they've been undone manually. They added a lot of red links too but I know that's not strictly against the rules. - Mitchea99 (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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 [155], Heathrow Airport[156], Ninoy Aquino International Airport [157], Darwin International Airport [158] and Clark International Airport [159]

Yesterday, there were similiar mass deletions at Suvarnabhumi Airport [160] and Zurich Airport [161].

A week ago, something similiar happened at [162], [163], [164] and [165]

I tried reverting the deletions and suggesting that citation-needed tags [166] [167] and [168] be added instead but this was quickly re-deleted multiple times at [169], [170] and [171]

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 [172]. 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 [173] you decided to double down and post on their talk page anyway while calling their mental health into doubt? [174] 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 [175]. I have described such incidents here: [176] 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: [177]

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[178][179] 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: [180] 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 ([181]) 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[182][183] (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 [184]
2. to have been paid by the subject's business to edit on behalf of the subject [185]
3. to be the article subject [186]

-- 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)

Legal threat by 2603:7000:2bf0:bbf0:f43b:d63d:914:45ac

• 2603:7000:2bf0:bbf0:f43b:d63d:914:45ac (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2603:7000:2BF0:BBF0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The range 2603:7000:2BF0:BBF0:0:0:0:0/64 has been disruptively editing Joanna Pickering (a long-term promotional BLP of a semi-notable figure) ever since the latest in a string of SPAs got short shrift. This ended up with this unambiguous legal threat on my User Talk page later copied to the article Talk page here. I think it is time to block that range for a good long time. (Note that it wasn't even me who listed the paid contributors to the article on the Talk page!) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Subject appears to be the nonnotable beneficiary of a long-term effort to prop up the article with puffy, worthless sources. Article was deleted in 2007 by unanimous consensus, moved to DAFT: space in 2017 by unanimous consensus (not counting !votes by two SPAs), and has now somehow made its way back into mainspace. I've nominated for deletion, and this time it should be salted. See WP:Articles for deletion/Joanna Pickering (3rd nomination). EEng 23:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  I've reopened this thread since there's suspicious activity in that article that needs to be examined further. I've also opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamjoannapickering. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

User:6485Editor needs talk page editing access removed

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 [187], [188] and [189]. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Bulgarian IP hopping LTA

• 145.255.217.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 92.247.202.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.95.189.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These IP addresses are used by WP:LTA/DTHD to evade blocks, restore fake information (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4) and spam user talk pages (diff 5, diff 6, diff 7). –LDM2003 ^{talk to me!} 08:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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 ([190], [191], [192]) before a cut-and-paste move ([193], [194], [195]; plus some earlier attempts: [196], [197]) from an older, original entry ([198]) in the draft namespace to a relatively later fork ([199]; the fork went on to be moved from the draft into the main article namespace without going through the usual submission review process ([200], [201])). Then there were attempts to speedy the original draft ([202], [203]). 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 ([204], [205]). 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.[206] 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[207] 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)

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)

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

• 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)

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

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)

User:NoraFrost and use of LLMs/WP:CIR

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)